Standing Committee A

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill

Peter Pike: Before I call the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), it is convenient for me to say that I understand that it is the Committee's intention to continue until about 7 pm tonight. Given that, Members should try to adjourn before any Division is called on the Floor of the House, or I may be in difficulty and we may have to come back. I tell the Committee that as a note of friendly guidance.
 The second point is that it is my intention to suspend the Committee for about 20 minutes for a break at a convenient point at about half-past 4. In other words, when someone finishes speaking around that time, I shall call a break.

New Clause 30 - Access for disabled people

'(1) In the principal Act for section 76 (Duty to draw attention to certain provisions for benefit of disabled) there is substituted the following section— 
 ''76 Access Statements 
 (1) Any application for planning permission shall not be entertained by the local planning authority, or as the case may be, by the Secretary of State unless it is accompanied by an access statement. 
 (2) An 'access statement' is a statement which demonstrates that the applicant has fully considered the access requirements of disabled people in relation to the whole development and has described how they intend to meet them. 
 (3) An access statement shall, in particular, demonstrate that the proposed development complies with relevant statutory duties, relevant access standards and any policies on inclusive design included in the local planning authority's development plan. 
 (4) Relevant statutory duties include— 
 (a) the duties of persons providing buildings to which the public are to be admitted, under sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to make provision for members of the public who are disabled; 
 (b) the duties of persons providing universities, schools, offices and other premises, under sections 7, 8 and 8A of that Act, to make provision for people who are disabled; 
 (c) the duties of employers and trade organisations, under sections 6 and 15 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and under any code of practice issued by the Disability Rights Commission under section 53A of that Act, to make adjustments to premises; and 
 (d) the duties of service providers, under section 21 of that Act and under any code of practice issued by the Disability Rights Commission under section 53A of that Act, to make adjustments to premises 
 (e) the duties of education providers, under section 28T of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and under any code of practice issued by the Disability Rights Commission under section 53A of that Act; 
 (3) Relevant access standards include—
 (a) British Standard 8300 ''Designing buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people'' or any document replacing it; and 
 (b) in the case of developments related to new housing, the Lifetime Homes standard.'' 
 (2) In the principal Act, after section 76 there is inserted the following section— 
 ''76A.Duty to have special regard to needs of disabled people 
 (1) In dealing with an application to which this section applies the local planning authority, or as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the needs of disabled people and in particular the duties and standards mentioned in section 76. 
 (2) This section applies to— 
 (a) an application under sections 62 or 73 for planning permission; 
 (b) an application under section 92 for the approval of reserved matters; and 
 (c) an application for the approval of details required under a condition of a grant of planning permission (including a permission granted by a development order). 
 (3) In this section, the terms ''disabled'' and ''disabled people'' shall be construed in accordance with section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.'' 
 (3) In the Listed Buildings Act 1990— 
 (a) in section 16 (decision on application), after subsection (2) there is inserted the following subsection— 
 ''(2A) In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works or to approve details under a condition of a listed building consent, the local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall also have special regard to the needs of disabled people.'' 
 (b) in section 91(2) (interpretation), before ''development plan'', there is inserted ''disabled people,''. 
 (4) In the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979— 
 (a) in section 2 (control of works affecting scheduled monuments), after subsection (3) there is inserted the following subsection— 
 ''(3A) In considering whether to grant scheduled monument consent for any works or to approve details under a condition of such a consent, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the needs of disabled people.'' 
 (b) in section 61(1) (interpretation), before ''designation order'' there is inserted— 
 ''''disabled people'' has the same meaning as in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995;''.'—[Matthew Green.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time. 
 Question again proposed.

Peter Pike: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:
 No. 132, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 38, at end insert— 
 '(c) Include details of the steps to be taken to meet the access needs of disabled people.'. 
No. 147, in 
clause 10, page 6, line 24, at end add— 
 '(j) the steps to be taken by the RPB to ensure the draft revision and appraisal under section 5 furthers the social inclusion/access needs of disabled people.'. 
No. 173, in 
clause 56, page 40, line 40, at end insert— 
 '(c) The authority's policies for meeting the access needs of disabled people'. 
No. 148, in 
clause 14, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
 '(ff) how it will meet the access needs of disabled people.'. 
No. 172, in 
clause 54, page 39, line 33, at end insert 
 'including how the Plan will meet the access needs of disabled people'.

Yvette Cooper: As I was saying earlier, may I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw the new clause?

Matthew Green: I found the Minister's response disappointing. In dealing with the five amendments rather than the new clause, she once again said, ''Ah, but we're just about to produce some draft regulations or''—in this case—''some draft guidance.'' We had that back in January: every time we tabled amendments, we were told that the issues were about to be dealt with in draft guidance and regulations, and we have had a regular spate of such assurances all over again. It does not help the Committee to be told that such things are about to appear next week. That does not endear the Government to those in opposition—not that they set out to do that.
 However, I am more concerned with new clause 30, which I am tempted to push to a Division. Four years ago, the Government's own disability rights taskforce recommended: 
 ''The Government should consider the future roles of Section 76 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires planning authorities to alert developers to disability access requirements, when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. Developers should be alerted to disability access legislation at the earliest opportunity in the planning process''. 
The Government's response in ''Towards Inclusion'' in 2001, after another two years had elapsed, was: 
 ''We agree with the Task Force and will review Section 76 when a suitable opportunity arises''. 
In 2001, the Labour manifesto committed the Government to implementing basic rights for disabled people and the recommendations of the taskforce to which they had signed up. Time is now running out for the Government to implement their commitment. 
 Although new clause 30 is not exactly what the Government had in mind, it is pretty much the essence of what they have said they support. The argument that the problem can be dealt with purely through regulation and guidance does not quite cut the mustard, so I am fully minded to push the new clause to a Division. 
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived. New Clause 31Enforcement of planning controls

New Clause 31 - Enforcement of planning controls

'A local planning authority must exercise its powers so as to ensure compliance with planning controls in its area.'—[Matthew Green.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Matthew Green: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause is backed by the Campaign to Protect Rural England and, I believe, the Conservatives. It aims to improve the effectiveness of, and therefore public confidence in, local planning by placing local authorities under a statutory duty to enforce planning decisions and to remedy breaches of planning control. 
 Enforcement is the basis of quality control in the planning system, and proper enforcement is crucial to the credibility of planning. Its neglect undermines public confidence in the whole planning system and may result in significant harm to the environment and to people's quality of life, yet enforcement action is in steady decline and is at its lowest level since records began. The explanation for that does not appear to be a reduction in breaches of planning control but, rather, a retreat from action by local authorities. 
 Possible reasons for that spiral of decline are: the complexity of the system; the perverse incentives that make planning breaches financially worthwhile for offenders; an imbalance in the system that favours those who breach controls and that leaves local authorities vulnerable to compensation claims; a lack of local authority resources, especially in small, rural district councils, which often have a disproportionately high burden of planning enforcement; and the extensive opportunities for offenders to evade and delay enforcement, thus draining local authority resources. 
 Other possible reasons are the deterrent effect on local authorities of all those problems, particularly those affecting resources, and the fact that local authorities have the discretion not to take action. Local authorities often give more weight to the reasons against taking action, and choose not to do so, because there is no duty to enforce and because they understandably perceive their primary responsibility to be the provision of that which they have a statutory duty to provide. 
 Enforcement is commonly underfunded and many authorities fail adequately to monitor conditions that have been placed on planning permissions. Even when the most flagrant breaches of planning control are reported, members of the public can neither require that action be taken nor be confident that the breach will be remedied. 
 One local authority—I wish I knew which—apparently told a complainant that it does not carry out any enforcement. Ministers may be surprised by that, as am I, but local authorities can say that because there is no such statutory duty on them. I could give many examples of when there should have been enforcement but there was none, as I am sure other members of the Committee could. To make progress, however, I shall not list such examples from my constituency. 
 I hope that the Minister will seriously consider placing a statutory duty on local authorities to enforce. The glory of that would be that another Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would presumably have to find the money for the planning departments to fund it. Given that we have laws, one expects them to be enforced and that people will be given the funds to do so.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is nice to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Pike.
 As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, the Opposition basically support the new clause. We believe that there is a real problem of enforcement and that far too many retrospective planning applications seem to be granted automatically. The problem is that the system favours those who proceed with a development without obtaining the proper planning permission. Once a development has gone ahead, it is very easy to manipulate the system in the developer's favour. 
 It might be worth citing the seven or so reasons given by the CPRE for such lack of enforcement. It refers to 
''the complexity of the system; perverse incentives which make planning breaches financially worthwhile for offenders; a bias in the system which favours abusers and leaves local authorities vulnerable to compensation claims; a lack of local authority resources; extensive opportunities for offenders to evade and delay enforcement, draining local authority resources; the deterrent effect on local authorities of all of the above; and local authorities' discretion not to take enforcement action.'' 
Ministers and other members of the Committee who have dealt with the planning system will know what happens in practice when a developer, or even someone who does not wilfully want to flout the planning rules, goes ahead with a development. As the hon. Member for Ludlow says, many unauthorised developments never even get as far as incurring an enforcement notice, but even if the local authority does serve an enforcement notice the person having carried out the unauthorised development will appeal against it, which probably adds at least another six months' delay to the process. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the person will seek a judicial review, which probably adds yet another year. Meanwhile, it gets more and more difficult for the local authority to enforce against something that has already been there for a year and a half or for two years. There is a need for a new clause like this. It would place further strain on the planning authorities' already scarce resources, which the Government will have to address, but if a law is being widely flouted something needs to be done about it, otherwise it falls into disrepute. 
 I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the new clause, but if they are not I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow pushes the matter further.

Mark Francois: I entirely endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who systematically listed the reasons why councils find it difficult to do the right thing in taking enforcement action when they know that they should do so. I also endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow when he said that rural district councils have a particular problem with this. I cite the example of one of my local authorities—Rochford district council in Essex—which, to its credit, attempts to take a robust attitude to enforcement. Like many other rural district councils, however, it is stretched when it tries to do so, as my hon. Friend says. It does not have especially large numbers of planning staff and it is not especially well off. It is trying to do the right thing, but that puts its small planning and enforcement team under particular pressure.
 If Ministers want to avoid the situation in which too many councils go down the path of least resistance, the Bill presents a good opportunity to put right a problem in the system that has been there for several years. I urge them not to allow the problem to drift further. I hope that they are minded to accept the new clause today. If, for any reason, they are not so minded, perhaps they might reconsider the issue in the not too distant future. 
 This has been a problem for a long time. Many councils are attempting to do the right thing, but the system is weighted so heavily against them that it is very difficult for them to do so. If Ministers exist to put right such problems, this is an excellent opportunity for them to do so.

Yvette Cooper: There is a series of problems with new clause 31. I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Gentlemen about enforcement, but the new clause could be interpreted in a way that implied that local planning authorities had a duty to take enforcement action in every case that involved a breach of planning control. That would effectively remove all discretion from local planning authorities, yet discretion is an important part of the enforcement system.
 The fact that the enforcement powers of local planning authorities are currently discretionary was considered as part of our review of planning enforcement arrangements. We hope to announce the outcome of that public consultation later in the year. Local authorities have primary responsibility for taking whatever action may be necessary in the public interest. That provides them with the flexibility to tailor their approach to each case so that it fits the nature and circumstances of the alleged breach of planning control. Local authorities have been issued with policy and procedural guidance to assist them to undertake effective enforcement, and they have a range of powers at their disposal. 
 Minor breaches can often be remedied without the need for formal enforcement action. Such breaches often arise out of a genuine misunderstanding of the planning position, or a mistaken belief that planning permission was not required for a particular development. It is important that a balance can be struck between situations where a development, though unauthorised, is not causing particular harm, and those where enforcement action is essential in order to remedy more serious breaches of control—ones that unacceptably affect public amenity or the use of land, when it is clearly in the public interest for enforcement action to be taken. 
 If planning permission would have been granted unconditionally had an application been made, the better approach might be to invite the submission of a retrospective application rather than requiring local authorities to enforce every case, even when it would not be appropriate.

Matthew Green: The Minister is pointing out some of the problems with the new clause. Does she not agree that we have problems with a lack of enforcement now? If so, how else would she propose solving them?

Yvette Cooper: Many of the concerns expressed about enforcement were discussed as part of the enforcement review that I mentioned earlier.
 Local authorities have discretion and are able to make a proportionate response. However, we need also to consider the role of democratically elected councillors. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Ludlow said about a local authority not doing enforcement. Like him, I would be interested to know which local authority it was, but I would also be interested in the view of local councillors. They are accountable to the local community, and I suspect that many of them would have a lot to say if they thought that the local authority was doing no enforcement. It is appropriate for the community to demand action through their local councillors on appropriate enforcement levels in their area. 
 Local planning authorities need to consider taking enforcement action to ensure compliance with planning controls in their area. Complaints about alleged breaches of control should be recorded and investigated. If a local authority, having considered the circumstances of an alleged breach, has decided that enforcement action is unnecessary, it should be prepared to explain and justify its decision to the local community and to its elected councillors. Failure to take enforcement action that is plainly necessary could result in a finding of maladministration by the local government ombudsman. It might even be the subject of judicial review. A duty to take action in all cases, as the amendment seems to imply, would remove the freedom of local authorities to exercise judgment, a freedom that is appropriately exercised by the democratically elected local council in this case.

Mark Francois: I have listened carefully to the Minister. She is making much of the fact that councillors have discretion and can therefore exercise their judgment. I understand her point. However, it works two ways. When councillors seek to undertake enforcement action, they have to look at the resources that are available to them and at the amount of officer time and the potential cost to the council tax payer that will be involved. As the law stands, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has clearly laid out, it often takes up to two years to bring a successful enforcement action. The cop-out is to go for retrospective planning approval. Everybody involved in the system knows that. I remind the Minister that discretion works both ways: if she wants local councillors and their officers to do the right thing, they need help.

Yvette Cooper: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is asking us either to impose another statutory duty on local authorities or to provide them with ring-fenced resources. The approach that we have taken has been to give local authorities greater freedoms and flexibilities. It is right for them to be able to take more decisions about how to use their resources. We have also substantially increased the resources available to them, again so that they can decide the priorities in their areas. We are right to do that, rather than continually imposing priorities on them from the centre. What the hon. Gentleman is asking for is not necessarily right—these should be matters for local councillors.
 We recognise that there are concerns about enforcement and have been considering them as part of the enforcement review. We held consultation that finished, at the beginning of this year, with 500 responses. A working group that includes people from local authorities with expertise in the field has been considering the matter in detail. Among the issues that have been raised are resources, the role of the courts in the enforcement process, retrospective planning permission and time limits for taking enforcement action. We intend to publish a response to the enforcement review before the end of the year. We shall discuss the issues further under clause 52, so I shall not say anything further at this stage. I do not think that the approach in new clause 31 resolves the problem, so I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw the new clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: With great respect, the Minister is doing a great job but, on this occasion, her reply is unsatisfactory. We all know, particularly those of us who represent smaller, cash-strapped local planning authorities, how difficult it is for them to undertake enforcement. That is much easier in a larger, urban authority where development takes place in a much smaller area. In a constituency such as mine—60 miles long by 45 miles wide, with 120 villages and 11 market towns—it is exceedingly difficult, even if the local planning authority knows that there has been a breach of the planning regulations, for its officers to get round to find out what stage a person has reached in breaking the law and whether it is capable of enforcement.
 The Minister is being slightly unrealistic about the issue. She made it clear in her opening remarks that enforcement is a discretionary matter for local authorities. We all know those small cash-strapped local authorities. When anything is discretionary, it almost becomes impossible when they are trying to eke out each penny. They have to deal with the statutory matters first, and discretionary matters come second. That is a weakness in the system. I am all for regulating with a light touch; that is exactly what we ought to be doing. In a perfect world, there would be no need for the new clause, as everybody would obey the law absolutely. However, that is not happening. 
 The Minister went on to make the point that where planning permission would otherwise be granted as a matter of course, it would be unnecessary to take enforcement action. I would say that it is necessary to take enforcement action, because if action is not taken in one case, others will do exactly the same. Such an attitude encourages a breach of the law. 
 Another point that the Minister relied on was the issue of retrospective applications. I do not know about her local authority, but in mine nearly all the retrospective applications go through. That is because the officers know very well that if a retrospective application is made and they are using staff to carry out the enforcement procedure, that will, for the very reasons that I have made clear, be expensive and difficult; they are already trying to deal with a host of new applications, let alone retrospective ones. Many of those retrospective applications should not go through and, if someone has broken the law, I would take that line as a matter of course. That would encourage people to make a proper application in the first place.

Yvette Cooper: I can tell the hon. Gentleman the facts about retrospective planning permission across the country. Retrospective applications make up just over 3 per cent. of the total number of applications processed. The success rate for retrospective applications is slightly lower at 85 per cent. than that of 88 per cent. for applications submitted before the development has taken place. For major developments, the success rate drops still further to 76 per cent. for retrospective applications. It is not true that retrospective applications are more likely than prior applications to gain planning permission. It is certainly not true that all retrospective planning permissions are accepted.

Peter Pike: Before the hon. Member for Cotswold replies, I inform him that we will be discussing retrospective planning applications under new clause 52, so will he please keep his comments brief and relate them to this particular new clause?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Pike, for that guidance. It is helpful that we will be coming back to the subject. My only reply to the Minister's figures is that an 85 per cent. success rate for something that is otherwise unlawful seems to me to be a very high percentage.
 The Minister also relied on an argument about increased resources for the planning authorities to deal with such problems. We have not got on to the issue of resources, and I might be ruled out of order if we do, but I suspect that a vast quantity of increased resources are not going to the local planning authorities but to the regional planning authorities. We will discuss that another day. 
 I am not surprised that the Minister has received so many replies to her consultation on enforcement. I hope that those will be taken seriously. I would like to have seen, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow would have too, a little more commitment from the Minister today. If we could have that commitment now, we would not need to press the matter to a vote. I ask the Minister to consider making a commitment that if the responses are such that further action needs to be taken, the Government will not hesitate to do so. I invite the Minister to come back to what I have said.

Mark Francois: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said. The issue is one of particular interest in my constituency, which is why I have come back for a second bite of the cherry. Small rural district councils face real challenges with regard to such matters. I heard the Minister's comments about the conclusions of the review on enforcement being made available before the end of the year. I am sure that we all welcome that. Given the amount of time that it has already taken for the Bill to be re-committed, it would have been nice if the information had been made available to us in October so that we could have had it at our disposal for the purposes of today's debate.
 The people who are under pressure are attempting to do the right thing. They are often up against people who are flouting the law, who understand the law in great detail and know precisely what they are doing. We have a small, thin—blue, red, yellow, or any colour one might want to give it—line of enforcement officers who are doing their best to uphold the law. If any were here now and permitted to speak, I am sure that they would personally appeal to the Minister for action as a result of the review. On their behalf, I encourage Ministers to take concrete action following the review—perhaps even to finding a way of working something into the Bill, if they have an idea of the likely outcome of the review. The issue is very important in parts of the country.

Yvette Cooper: Before the hon. Member for Ludlow winds up, perhaps I may respond. If our conclusion as part of the enforcement review is that we need to take further action, we shall clearly do so. It is worth pointing out that the enforcement review is likely to report before the Bill's ultimate passage through another place, so it will be possible to consider the matters further. At this stage we do not anticipate further legislative measures; otherwise we should have presented them in Committee.
 As for whether local planning authorities are attempting to do the right thing, they have the powers to do the right thing. They already have the power to 
 take enforcement action. Effectively, the Government are being asked to force local councillors to do what they argue they want to do in the first place.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I try to explain one more time? I should love the Minister to come to talk to the planning officers in my constituency, because about 90 per cent. of my constituency is designated in one way or another; there is no place more affected than the Cotswolds. The officers are working flat out dealing with new applications, and they have time to take retrospective action only on the most flagrant breaches of planning control, which means that there is a whole raft of cases that they cannot enforce.

Yvette Cooper: Those planning officers must make their case to the local democratically elected councillors in the area for the allocation of resources. It is not for me as the Minister to overrule the councillors because their planning officers have asked for something. The decision needs to be taken by the local authorities.
 Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is asking for more ring-fenced resources for the planning authorities in question, but we have substantially increased resources for local authorities. I am resisting making political points and comparing the allocation of resources to local authorities by the present Government and by previous Governments. However, not only have we given local authorities more resources, we are also promoting greater flexibility for them to decide how to allocate them. The decision is for them to take, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to force their hand on the issue if the planning officers cannot make a strong enough case to the councillors who must decide on the budget allocation.

Mark Francois: We are not here to debate council tax, and you would rightly call us to order if we began to do that, Mr. Pike. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has pointed out, in the real world, when councils are under financial pressure, as so many of them are, the statutory responsibilities take priority and often the discretionary services at the margin suffer. Councils must prioritise, like everyone else.
 What we are talking about is a classic example of one of the services at the margin that tends to suffer when other, statutory, services come first, including the need to deal with regular planning applications in the time scales of which we are all aware. The people who are attempting to defend the areas in question are very pushed, and need more help. We are being persistent because this is a genuine problem, and the people involved need assistance. I make no apology for the fact that we keep coming back at the Minister on this question, because we know how real the problem is.

Yvette Cooper: I must point out that Opposition Members' stance is not logical or consistent with other things that their party is calling for. They are asking
 for further restriction of local authorities' discretion in decision making and in funding allocation. My experience of discussions with Conservative-led councils is that they, like Labour-led ones, often want more discretion over the way in which they use their resources. They would find it rather perverse to hear their Front-Bench spokespeople arguing for local councils to have less discretion in the way in which they allocate funds.
 The second aspect implicit in what they are calling for is more ring-fenced resources. I wonder where they think that such resources will come from, given that their party is so keen to cut the resources allocated to many public services.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: For the first time the Minister is getting us into real politics. We know very well that the increased resources that the Government provide for planning go straight to the regions, not to local planning authorities. If local authorities had sufficient resources, there would not be a problem with enforcement. It is not a question of the resources being ring-fenced; councils do not have sufficient resources for planning, full stop. My authority does not have enough, and I am sure that other hon. Members could say the same. Councils cannot undertake enforcement on a discretionary basis. We want to legislate with a light touch, and we are in favour of discretion; if that were enshrined in the Bill, the Government would have to provide the resources. If they were to stop giving resources to the regions and put them back into the local authorities, we would take the new clause away like a shot.

Peter Pike: Order. Let us not go too wide; we must keep to new clause 31.

Yvette Cooper: Let me conclude, then, Mr. Pike, by pointing out again to the hon. Member for Cotswold the contradictions in his position. He asks for the statutory duty to be imposed to force the Government to provide more resources. I ask him again: where does he want the additional resources to come from?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Take them away from the regions.

Yvette Cooper: We are already providing substantially more resources to local authorities than were provided by previous Governments, and the hon. Gentleman's party wants to reduce the resources provided for public services across the board. I do not see how he manages to make his sums add up.
Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—

Yvette Cooper: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman one last time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is grossly misrepresenting my position. A large percentage of the additional resources that the Government are putting into planning is for setting up the new regional planning boards and bodies, regional spatial strategies and so on. I want to see that money redirected to local people who know what should be going on in their areas, not given to regions 200 miles away.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman's point is not right. We are providing substantial increases in resources for local authorities across the board, for them to use in whatever way they see fit. This is not simply about planning, it is about the resources going to local authorities so that they can choose their most important priorities, as local democratically elected councils should be able to. We should not continually try to pre-empt the decisions of local councillors; they should have discretion. We recognise that there are concerns about enforcement, and that the question of resources has been raised, and it is our intention to publish a response to the enforcement review before the end of the year. It is easy, whichever individual issue comes up, for hon. Members to try to encroach on the decision-making powers of local authorities. We should respect those authorities and give them the discretion to make decisions on such matters.

Matthew Green: I shall try to avoid going down a similar, political, route. It is dangerous for the Minister to point out that the Conservative position may be full of contradictions. Probably all our positions are full of contradictions, but there are plenty of contradictions where she is coming from. People in glass houses should not throw stones. For instance, the Minister would not expect a local council to decide that enforcement was more important than getting its planning applications in within the statutory time limit laid down by the Government. A local authority that decided that enforcement was more of a problem in its area than the speed at which it dealt with planning applications, and diverted resources from one to the other, would, as a consequence, fail to meet its statutory obligations. The Government accept that there should be statutory rules on speed but not on enforcement, so there is a contradiction in their position, just as there are contradictions in all our positions. We need to be careful about that.
 Now I want to talk about the scale of the problem, especially in small rural districts. I have probably bored the Committee about this before, but my constituency is the size of greater London, yet contains only 63,000 adults. Two thirds of the constituency—two thirds the size of London—contains only 32,000 adults, and is covered by South Shropshire district council, which receives planning applications at a rate four times the national average. For a population of 32,000, the council has a tiny planning budget, out of a total budget of, I believe, £2 million. Its resources are tiny. I believe that there should be a unitary Shropshire, as the present council has reached the point of unsustainability, but it still exists, because Ministers will not allow us a unitary Shropshire. 
 If the council receives four times the national average rate of planning applications, I am fairly certain that its enforcement should run at a similar rate. A few years ago it was such a small authority that it had no enforcement capability at all, but the councillors forced a review of their planning area and installed two enforcement officers, so the council now has an enforcement capability. One of the officers is especially zealous—I am tempted to say over-zealous at times. To give Members an idea of the scale, £20,000 is a 1 per cent. rise in council tax in South Shropshire. A few years ago, the district council introduced a council tax rise of several per cent. just to pay for the enforcement officers.
 only a few years ago, just to raise £20,000 to pay for the enforcement officers, South Shropshire district council introduced a 1 per cent. rise in council tax. Having enforcement officers is not a statutory duty; the council chose to have them. 
 As the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire said, council tax has reached the limits of acceptability—I believe that that was his phrase. It is beyond small rural councils to say, ''Well, it's our choice. Let's stick the council tax up a bit more,'' to ensure that they can carry out the enforcement. The problem is purely about resources. In fact, South Shropshire district council is diligent about pursuing enforcement; the other authority in my constituency, Bridgnorth, probably does not pursue enforcement as well as South Shropshire does. That gives the Committee some idea of the scale of the financial problems that small rural councils face.

Mark Francois: The Minister mentioned a set of statistics that purport that the results of retrospective planning applications are broadly on a par with those of other planning applications. Surely, however, retrospective applications are overwhelmingly concentrated in the relatively small number of rural district areas, in which case, in net terms, the bulk of them are concentrated in the areas with the least financial resources to deal with them?

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Indeed, I caution the Minister against quoting those figures, because of the high percentage of planning applications that are withdrawn before they reach the committee because they have been recommended for refusal. Many applications that would otherwise have been submitted are pulled. Clearly, that will not happen with a retrospective application, as applicants have no choice about obtaining planning permission, so the positions are the same.
 Unfortunately, the Minister has failed to convince the Opposition that the Government are sufficiently abreast of the problem, probably as it is particular to a relatively small number of local authorities, and is a much greater problem to them than it is for many other authorities. That may be why the problem does not appear to be as significant to the Government as it does to other hon. Members. I am therefore minded to press the matter to a vote. Until council tax is scrapped and we have a fairer system—I am sure that the Government will reach that position eventually—local government will not have the flexibility to decide to choose to perform non-statutory duties. As we have already heard, most of those non-statutory duties are being wound back because councils can no longer bear to ask pensioners for extra money through the council tax. I shall therefore press the new clause to a Division. 
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. New Clause 32Regulations to control light pollution

New Clause 32 - Regulations to control light pollution

'—After section 225 of the principal Act there is inserted— 
 ''(1A) Regulations under this Act shall make provision for restricting or regulating the use of external lighting so far as appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient in the interests of amenity or public safety.''.'—[Matthew Green.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Matthew Green: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The Committee will be pleased to know that this is the last time that I shall start a debate—

Terry Rooney: That is the first time that he has been right all day.

Matthew Green: I am grateful for the information provided by the Campaign to Protect Rural England. The new clause aims to make lighting subject to planning control by providing for enabling regulations to be made.
 The CPRE offered a long new clause that would have gone into great detail. I decided that that would give Ministers too much opportunity to tell us that it would not work. The clause therefore simply gives Ministers the ability to make regulations to 
''make provision for restricting or regulating the use of external lighting so far as appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient in the interests of amenity or public safety.'' 
The matter is now in Ministers' hands. How could they possibly refuse another power? They normally like accruing power, and I would be surprised if they did not accept this one. 
 The problem is that light cannot be classed as development, and is therefore not subject to planning controls. In some cases, however, it can be a problem. When excessive light is beamed upwards it can cause light pollution, which has a damaging effect on the environment, particularly if it is on all night. It is not physically damaging, but it affects our view of the sky. When we drive at night in rural areas, we realise that we can see an orange glow in the sky from nearby urban areas. It spoils the view of the stars and the sky. In a sense, it pushes the urban area out into the countryside. 
 Other problems that affect neighbours and surrounding areas are lights that are too powerful, floodlights that light too big an area, lights that stay on for an excessive time, and floodlights that light buildings excessively. There are clearly issues of public safety, and we do not want unlit areas to be dangerous and perhaps encourage crime. However, I am sure that all hon. Members can think of areas in their constituencies where there is too much light, or the light is inappropriate. 
 As I said, I leave it entirely to Ministers to decide whether they want a light or a heavy touch—or indeed, whether they want to make regulations at all. The new clause would not mean that they had to do so. It is an enabling new clause, which would allow them to deal with the problem later, should they wish to do so, and as such, I struggle to see how Ministers can refuse it.

Yvette Cooper: Much as the hon. Member for Ludlow would like to tempt me to take new powers, I shall resist. However, the new clause addresses a genuine issue: the concern that in too many places, external lighting increasingly prevents people from seeing the stars.
 The adverse effect of some external lighting is well known. In the past, a lot of street lighting was provided by low-pressure sodium lighting units, which often lead to orange sky glow. Newer technologies, particularly high-pressure sodium lighting units, allow much finer control of light distribution and reduce the amount of light directed towards the sky. 
 The Government are sensitive to these issues. In 1997 we issued a document entitled, ''Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice'', which is available on our website. It demonstrates what can be done to lessen the adverse effects of external lighting, including street lighting and security lighting. The Department for Transport has published advice on good street lighting practice to reduce sky glow and light pollution generally, as has the Institution of Lighting Engineers. The institution has also published advice on security lighting. 
 The hon. Member for Ludlow specifically mentioned nuisance lighting, which I agree is at issue. Last year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued a consultation paper entitled, ''Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities''. One issue addressed in that paper is nuisance from domestic security lights. Opinions were sought on whether the Government should extend the statutory nuisance regime to include security lighting, which we are considering. 
 The paper also questioned whether the guidance in the document ''Lighting in the Countryside'' should be updated. We are considering that question. On 6 October 2003, the Select Committee on Science and Technology published a report on light pollution and astronomy, which the Government are considering. We will consider whether any additional guidance on light pollution is needed, and will also consider any recommendations that emerge from the consultation exercise and from the Science and Technology 
 Committee's report. It is worth recognising the fact that the Committee did not recommend a planning solution.

Matthew Green: I am glad that the Minister mentioned the Select Committee. It recommended making obtrusive light a statutory nuisance, thus enabling local council environmental health officers to take legal action against serious neighbourhood light polluters. Unfortunately, there may not be time for the Minister to perform another miracle under the Anti-social Behaviour Bill.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right. That issue, which can be separated from that of orange sky glow, needs attention. The Government are considering nuisance lighting, and the relevant legislation issues, as part of the consultation led by the DEFRA. However, it is important to note that the Science and Technology Committee did not recommend a broad planning solution to the problem.
 It is difficult to design a feasible means of assessing external light for statutory planning control purposes. Any legislation would have to be practically enforceable. That would require the ability to make assessments that are sufficiently robust and clear to survive argument in the courts, where cases may end up. We must also recognise that the main source of orange glow is street and highway lighting, which are being addressed in other ways. The planning system would not provide the best solution. 
 Given those practical difficulties, the issue is probably best dealt with not through the Bill or the new clause, but by considering the guidance issues, the response to the Science and Technology Committee's report and the consultation on nuisance lighting led by DEFRA. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

Sydney Chapman: Having listened carefully to the Minister, I would like to make two comments about two different examples of the problem, the first of which concerns security lighting. There is a house in my constituency that is slightly set back from the public highway and footpath. However, if one passes it on the public footpath, the security light goes on. That is clearly a nuisance to neighbours—and to the pedestrian who is going about his lawful walking business. It is not unreasonable for the planning system to insist that although security lighting is welcomed, it should be within the curtilage of a property, rather being allowed to expand beyond it. Perhaps my constituent who is the owner of that property has deliberately made that arrangement to provide a certain security when he parks his car in front of his house. That is only a thought, but that example shows how the planning regulations could be reasonably and practically used.
 The second situation, which has not been touched on, is where, for example, school playing fields or other school grounds are surrounded by houses. The benefit to those in the houses is that they have a nice stretch of green field behind them, but the disadvantage is that if someone suddenly decides to put down an all-weather hockey or football pitch, tennis courts, or whatever, 
 people can use those at all times of the day and night. It seems to me perfectly legitimate for the planning authority not only to decide whether an all-weather pitch should be permitted, but to control when floodlights can used for the purposes of participating in a sport—but can the Minister confirm that, perhaps in a letter? I am sure the local planning authority can insist on restricting the hours of use, so that even though lights are necessarily used in the evening, they need not be on at the dead of night. That is another example of when the planning system could be used practically to deal with a problem.

Clive Betts: I shall follow on from the hon. Gentleman's comments about how the existing planning system could be used, which were most helpful. There is another example in my constituency, in which the residents complained about the light from a car sales area attached to a showroom. In that case there was a large parking area with columns tens of feet high that spread the light over an enormous area. The planning authority eventually enforced its initial condition that those lighting columns be much lower, so the spread of light and the disruption to residents was controlled. That is another example of how the current planning system can be used positively to try to control what can be a considerable public nuisance.

Yvette Cooper: I shall try respond to the points that hon. Members have made. We recognise that the nuisance caused to neighbours by security lighting is an issue, but I am not convinced that the planning system would be the best way to deal with it, which is why DEFRA is taking the lead in consideration of a wide range of issues involving nuisance. As I said, although I cannot promise to achieve the same feat that we achieved with high hedges in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, I can assure the Committee that we are looking into nuisance lighting and the issues associated with it.
 On the question of whether local authorities can impose conditions on things such as floodlighting for sports and recreation, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) is right. PPG17 advises that when considering applications for floodlighting, local authorities should ensure that local amenity is protected. They can impose conditions on planning consents that they grant—for example, by restricting the height of lighting columns or the spread and duration of light from the new light fixtures. 
 Light pollution is identified in PPG12, on development plans, as one of the environmental considerations that should be taken into account when drawing up development plans, and the 1997 lighting in the countryside guidance, which I mentioned earlier, advises local authorities to consider including policies on lighting in their development plans, and supplementary planning guidance to elucidate those policies. There are examples of local authorities introducing such policies. 
 I understand that the unitary development plan for the London borough of Sutton contains a policy to the effect that development proposals involving the use of 
 external lighting and floodlighting will be permitted only where there is no unduly adverse impact from increased levels of light pollution on the environment or on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Local authorities are increasingly interested in the issue within the existing framework.

Matthew Green: I am half reassured that there are things that councils can do. I suspect that they need to be more aware of that fact and best practice should be encouraged as soon as possible. The Government could still need new planning regulations and the new clause would have enabled them, if necessary, to make such regulations—the Minister is wrong completely to rule out changes and it is unnecessary to reject the new clause on those grounds. I welcome the fact that there is a review on nuisance lighting, but my concern is that if it fails to be added to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill I cannot think of a Bill that is likely to come up in the next year's legislative work load on to which the Government might be able to tag it. [Interruption.] The Hunting Bill—yes. That is not one of the Minister's better observations. I do not think that I would be encouraged to support the Hunting Bill even if lighting were in it. [Interruption.] Oh dear.
 Mr. Francois: Keep going.

Keith Hill: Keep digging.

Matthew Green: The Government are churlish to turn the proposal down, because it would give them an opportunity that they might want to use if their review shows that they need to do something. They are determined to resist and I am not sure that I have much support—I can do the maths. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 35 - Enforcement

'In the principal Act in section 102 (Orders requiring discontinuance of use or alteration or removal of buildings or works) after subsection (1)(b) in the first place where it occurs for ''may'' there is substituted ''must''.'—[Sir Sydney Chapman.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Sydney Chapman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The Committee will be keen to observe that the new clause was to have been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). He has asked me to apologise to the Committee because he has a long-standing and important constituency engagement and he begs to give apologies for his absence from this sitting. He accepted the invitation not only before it was known when the Bill would be recommitted, but before it was known that it would be recommitted. 
 The new clause constitutes an obligation to take enforcement action. I need not rehearse all the arguments because they were dealt with tangentially by the Minister in earlier responses. It is one of those smaller new clauses that has a significant meaning. It refers to section 102 of the principal Act, which is headed: 
 ''Orders requiring discontinuance of use or alteration or removal of buildings or works''. 
That section states that if it appears to a local planning authority expedient or in the interest of the proper planning of its area to do so, it may order the discontinuance of the use of a particular piece of land, impose conditions on the use to which it is being put and require steps to be taken for the alteration or removal of the buildings or works where the use of the land is to be discontinued, or if conditions are to be imposed on the continuance of the use of that land. It also refers to the alteration or removal of any buildings or works. 
 Section 102 includes the words ''they may by order''. The purpose of my hon. Friend's new clause is to change the ''may'' to ''must''. In other words, instead of giving the authority the option and simply permitting it to take action, the new clause would oblige the authority to act. 
 Whenever one puts forward an amendment or new clause, one likes to act as the devil's advocate to ensure that one does not miss a trick. I suspect that a more jaundiced or cynical person than my hon. Friend might ask what is the difference between an authority being able to order a discontinuance notice if it is expedient to do so in the interests of proper planning and making that obligatory. The problem with making it obligatory is that the authority may find that it is not expedient in the interests of proper planning to serve such a notice. That is a possible lacuna, but the new clause deserves sympathetic consideration. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Keith Hill: I, too, express my delight, Mr. Pike, that you are presiding over our proceedings this afternoon.
 Currently, local planning authorities have the primary responsibility for taking whatever action may be necessary in the interests of proper planning in their areas. That includes discretion over whether a discontinuance order is issued. Section 102 of the 1990 Act enables a local planning authority to make an order requiring that any use of land shall be discontinued, or continued subject to conditions, or that any buildings or works shall be altered or removed. That provides planning authorities with the flexibility to tailor their approach to each case to fit the nature and circumstances of the case. 
 Making the power obligatory, which new clause 35 would do—it was ably moved by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman)—would remove that flexibility. It may also bring into play other elements of section 102, such as the compensation arrangements. A duty to implement in all cases, irrespective of the nature and circumstances, would place an additional and unwarranted burden on local authorities. 
 It is important that local authorities are able to target their resources—we have heard a great deal about resources today—on those cases that are causing most harm. In other words, my answer is about whether we should leave it to the discretion of local authorities to act in the expedient fashion that the hon. Gentleman described or whether we make it obligatory. The argument is about local discretion. I therefore urge him to withdraw the new clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thought that the Minister would use the argument about discretion, but he and, with the greatest respect, my hon. Friend have ignored section 102(1) of the principal Act, which states:
 ''If, having regard to the development plan and to any other material considerations, it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of the proper planning of their area''. 
The local planning authority may consider two large categories of discretion before it must act. I do not see why it should not have to act once it has considered those circumstances. Even when it has acted it may impose conditions, such as having to apply for planning permission, and even when it has done that the Secretary of State must confirm the order, and he might decide to convene an independent hearing to allow everyone to be heard. There is plenty of discretion in the system.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, expert and persuasive up to a point. We are very keen that local authorities retain not only the two large areas of discretion to which he alluded, but other thorough-going powers of discretion. We see no compelling grounds for placing obligations on the authorities, which the new clause would do. I urge the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet to withdraw the new clause.

Sydney Chapman: I will try to be as brief as possible, but by illustrating the fact that in those exceptional circumstances there are trigger points that enhance the suggestion that we should move for a requirement rather than an option for the local planning authority, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold made a very germane point.
 I have listened to the Minister in the sure knowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has tabled three further new clauses, which the Minister will find irresistible. I shall therefore show a magnanimous attitude and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 47 - Appeals (non-compliance with development plan)

'1. After section 78, subsection (2), of the principal Act there is inserted—(2A){**em**}Where a local planning authority approves an application for planning permission and—
(a) the planning application does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; or
(b) the planning application is one in which the local authority has an interest as defined in section 316;
 the persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permission in the circumstances specified above are—
(a) any persons who have lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority for the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated;
(b) other persons at the discretion of a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose.''
 2. Section 79 of the principal Act is amended as follows—
 ''In subsection (2), leave out (''either'') and after ''planning authority'' insert ''or the applicant (where different from the appellant).''
 In subsection (6), after ''the determination'' insert ''(except for appeals as defined in section 78(2A) and where the appellant is as defined in section 78(2B)''.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. New Clause 48Design and masterplans

New Clause 48 - Design and masterplans

'In the principal Act after section 54A (status of development plans) there is inserted the following new section—
 ''Design and masterplans
 54B. In determining any application for planning permission for development regard is to be had to any design or masterplan expressed as part of any existing permission for development on the application site.'.'.—[Sir Sydney Chapman.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Sydney Chapman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 This is the second of the four new clauses that were to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. His constituency and mine have few similarities. Isle of Wight has 106,000 electors, and mine has more or less the English norm of about 75,000. His constituency covers about 150 square miles while mine covers less than a tenth of that. His constituency is surrounded by water while mine is landlocked, although in the previous Session I had the privilege of piloting the National Heritage Bill, which was about marine archaeology, in this House. 
 The new clause, which is inspired by the Town and Country Planning Association, also has the support of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I declare an interest as I am involved with the Town and Country Planning Association and have just retired from the Royal Institute of British Architects. The new clause aims to promote and ensure good design. 
 It may help the Committee to know that during the short time in which I practised as an architect, the firm with which I was associated were architects to a brewery. When I move on to another earth, all that the country will have will be a few of the pubs that I designed. It was only when I had to design pubs that I realised the importance of field research. 
 I shall save the Committee time by quoting heavily from the brief prepared by the Town and Country Planning Association, which succinctly and positively stated: 
 ''This clause is prepared by the TCPA to address the problem of disregarding the original design or masterplan for a site once the principle of development has been agreed with initial planning permission. In these cases a good design can be replaced at a later stage of the planning process (at application for reserved matters or full planning permission) when an inferior scheme is put forward in the knowledge that the principle of development on the site has been agreed and that it is always difficult to reject a scheme in these circumstances solely on design factors.'' 
Indeed, to my knowledge—I do not believe that things have changed—a planning authority would find it very difficult to turn down an application purely on grounds of design, although I believe that they can do so in such beautiful places as the Cotswolds, where a brick building in village built entirely of stone would quite rightly not be permitted. In other parts of the country, however, I have rarely seen a planning authority successfully turn down an application for reasons of design. 
 In any case, I acknowledge that design is subjective. What one person finds beautiful, other people may find an eyesore. I shall try to stay within the rules of the proceedings, but the mediaeval clergy did not take kindly to Sir Christopher Wren's masterpiece. Incidentally, Christopher Wren and I have two things in common: we are both architects and Members of Parliament. The agreement has worked very well: Sir Christopher has promised to make no more speeches if I promise to design no more buildings. 
 My real point is that in some cases, the ability not to carry out the original outline design that excites the imagination and that is permitted could be substituted when the principle of a development and the land on which it would take place has been established, because the outline, or initial, planning permission quite properly gives rights to the applicant. 
 The TCPA goes on to say: 
 ''In some cases this can be described as 'trophy architecture' where a high quality masterplanner or designer is used for the initial application only to see the original scheme replaced with one of much poorer quality later on.''
I accept that this breaks new ground, but I hope that the Minister will not decline to accept the new clause for that reason. 
 The TCPA continues: 
 ''This new clause would for the first time give statutory recognition to design and masterplans and would introduce a duty to have regard to any such schemes which form part of an existing planning permission on an application site.'' 
Finally, it is my belief that the public are becoming more interested in, and demanding about, good architecture. In the early part of my career, both in politics and at the drawing board, there was a time when the good electors of my constituency decided that it was not appropriate to re-elect me. I had to go back to the drawing board, literally. In the post-war years, there was a great need to get rid of the slums, to replace the bombed buildings, and, with an exploding population, to provide more homes very quickly. Design was secondary to putting a roof over somebody's head. 
 Now, in one sense, we have a surplus of buildings. However, there is great demand for new buildings. Families are breaking up so more people are demanding smaller dwelling units rather than bigger ones. There is a great demographic and social change in our country. I think that people recognise the importance of good design, and they are prepared to pay for it. If the Government were to respond sympathetically to the new clause, they would be knocking at an open door. The people of our country would appreciate it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right. I congratulate him on the way in which he has moved the new clause. It is particularly apposite on a day in which we have seen two articles in the press, one in The Guardian and one in The Times. Unfortunately, I seem to have lost the one from The Guardian on my way here, but I have a copy of the one from The Times. It is headed:
 ''Prescott plans flatpack homes to beat shortage''.
 The article says that the Deputy Prime Minister 
''has instructed English Partnerships, the regeneration agency, to tender for hundreds of new pod-like homes in 'millennium communities' as part of the drive for greener buildings and eco-friendly construction in Britain.'' 
It goes on to say: 
 ''The units are a world away from the 1940s aluminium-framed prefab huts and also have new names, including OSM (off-site manufactured house) and even M-ouse (from mobile house). 
 Mr. Prescott has become hooked on the dwellings after visiting a number of house-builders''. 
It continues: 
 ''Mr. Prescott is so impressed by the designs and high quality of materials he sees no reason why the buildings should be seen in the same way as postwar temporary huts.'' 
There is a real issue, and it is design. Nobody could want more than for a much larger number of houses to be built than we have now. However, it is no good building houses for the sake of it and finding that in 20 years they have become tomorrow's slums. That is what happened in the case of post-war technology, with pre-cast reinforced concrete houses and so on. 
 Although some such technologies are proven, others are not. We would be ill advised to rush wholesale to unproven technologies. I have seen some of the new technologies working well. That is the case with pre-fitted bathrooms, for example—they are almost manufactured in one, with tiles, baths, and showers—which go into the house almost as one unit. That sort of thing can be successful. Imitation slates sold by the square metre rather than as individual slates to reduce building costs can work well. I have some worries about outside construction panels that are put on a concrete slab and bolted together. We need to consider such things very carefully. 
 Particularly at this dark time when the Government have set up a commission for design, we need to consider the matter carefully and learn from the lessons of the past if we are not to make tomorrow's slums out of today's poorly designed houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has made a good point. Design should be one of the critical matters that should be considered at the planning application stage. If the Government cannot accept the new clause, I hope that they will indicate that design should be given a much greater priority in the planning process.

Keith Hill: Let me, as I suspect the Opposition parties anticipated, provide the Committee with the usual technical, quasi-legalistic response to the new clause, which boils down to saying ''No, we cannot accept it''. Then I shall tell hon. Members what is in the Government's heart. As the Committee is aware, under the current system, existing planning decisions are based on the land-use merits of each proposal. When a further application is submitted for the same site, decision makers must consider each case afresh. However, the planning authority is already able to consider any relevant planning history of the land, including any previous permission, if it wishes—to that extent the new clause is not required.
 Before I speak about design, I shall respond to the hon. Member for Cotswold on the issue of off-site manufacture. We are unlikely to rush in to the large-scale application of modern methods of manufacture. Building is a traditional industry, as he knows, and progress is slow. However, various aspects of it are changing—he mentioned the use of pods for bathrooms that are manufactured in far-away places. There is a place across the river, Salamanca street, off the Albert embankment, where I have observed perfect bathroom pods being slipped into a block of flats. They are manufactured in Kilmarnock, and they are exquisite. 
 The technology for modern methods of manufacture is proven elsewhere. It is extensively used both on the continent of Europe and in north America. It is safe and cost-effective in many respects and it offers a very high quality of design. The Government are most enthusiastic about it, particularly against the backdrop of the skills shortages in not only the construction industry but the whole development industry. Sir John Egan is currently inquiring into the issue in order to encourage the most extensive use possible of modern methods of manufacture. 
 I come on to the new clause, which was so ably moved by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I welcome the commitment implicit in it, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks about good urban design. We are very sympathetic to the spirit of the new clause. The Government are committed to higher-quality design—it is absolutely essential to the provision of inclusive and sustainable communities and underpins much of what is set out in the communities plan. Government planning policies have, for some time, made it clear that, when submitting planning proposals, applicants should be able to demonstrate how they have taken account of the need for good design. PPG1, on general policy and principles, underlines that 
''good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and should be encouraged everywhere''.
 The policy is supported by good practice guidance, ''By Design'', and planning authorities are encouraged to reject poor design. Indeed, on this, the day of the better building summit, let me make it absolutely clear that the Government would be more than content if more authorities rejected applications on the basis of poor design. That would send out a powerful message. The Government's commitment to good design will be restated in the promised update of PPG1. 
 I agree with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The judgment about what constitutes good design is bound to be subjective at one level, but we all know what unimaginative, inhumane and soulless developments were inflicted on our communities in past decades. 
 The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that people are now far more open to good design, that they are willing to pay for it and that they want to see it. I might add that it has great benefits for developers, too. With those assurances—that the Government are not merely committed, but passionately concerned to promote the principles of good design in development—I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

Sydney Chapman: Once again, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his views. I shall, of course, seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the new clause. However, I hope that he will allow me to express a scintilla of disappointment first.
 The new clause would not give local planning authorities a blanket authority to turn down applications on the grounds of design. It would be strictly confined to previously submitted designs that might have had a great influence on the committee or council that determined the application—perhaps an exciting project that would be welcomed in the area—but for which inferior designs have subsequently been substituted. The new clause would have given the Government the opportunity to put a marker down to encourage and persuade people to say that the Government were serious about good design in buildings—and in the relationships between buildings. 
 I express a slight disappointment, but I do not want to detain the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 49 - Local development plan

'(1) The local planning authority must prepare and maintain a plan to be known as the local development plan (''the plan'').
 (2) The plan must specify—
(a) the documents which are to be local development plan documents;
(b) the subject matter and geographical area to which each document is to relate;
(c) which documents (if any) are to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities which will be treated the same as if one single authority had prepared it;
(d) any matter or area in respect of which the authority have agreed (or propose to agree) to the constitution of a joint committee under section 28;
(e) the timetable for the preparation and revision of the documents;
(f) such other matters as are prescribed.
 (3) The local planning authority may withdraw their plan at any time before it is formally adopted.
 (4) The local planning authority must—
(a) prepare the plan in accordance with such other requirements as are prescribed;
(b) submit the plan to the Secretary of State at such time as is prescribed or as the Secretary of State (in a particular case) directs;
(c) at that time send a copy of the plan to the RPB or (if the authority are a London borough) to the Mayor of London;
(d) prepare, publish and have regard to a Statement of Community Involvement as negotiated by Section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c22).
 (5) The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the plan as he thinks appropriate, but only when the Secretary of State and Authority can not agree on any matter.
 (6) A direction under subsection (5) above must contain the Secretary of State's reasons for giving it.
 (7) The local planning authority must comply with a direction given under subsection (5).
 (8) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the following matters—
(a) publicity about the plan;
(b) making the plan available for inspection by the public;
(c) requirements to be met for the purpose of bringing the plan into effect.
 (9) The local planning authority must revise their local development plan—
(a) at such time as they consider appropriate; or
(b) when directed to do so by the Secretary of State.
 (10) Subsections (2) to (8) apply to the revision of a plan as they apply to the preparation of the plan.
 (11) When preparing the local development plan under subsection (1) above, the local planning authority must have regard to—
(a) national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State;
(b) the RSS for the region in which the area of the authority is situated, if the area is outside Greater London;
(c) the spatial development strategy if the authority in a London borough or if any part of the authority's area adjoins Greater London;
(d) the RSS for any region which adjoins the area of the authority;
(e) the Wales Spatial Plan if any part of the authority's area adjoins Wales;
(f) the community strategy prepared by the authority;
(g) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;
(h) any other local development plan which has been adopted by the authority;
(i) the resources likely to be available for implementing the proposals in the document;
(j) such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes.
 (12) The local planning authority must submit their local development plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination.
 (13) But the authority must not submit such a document unless—
(a) they have complied with any relevant requirements contained in regulations under this Part, and
(b) they are satisfied that the plan is ready for independent examination.
 (14) The authority must also send to the Secretary of State (in addition to the development plan) such other documents (or copies of documents) and such information as is prescribed.
 (15) The examination must be carried out by a person (''the independent inspector'') appointed by the Secretary of State.
 (16) The purpose of an independent examination is to determine in respect of the development plan—
(a) whether it satisfies the requirements in this section; and
(b) whether it is sound.
 (17) Any person who makes representations seeking to change a development plan must (if he so requests) be given the opportunity to submit his representation in writing to the independent inspector, who shall decide whether or not that person shall be heard at the examination.
 (18) The independent inspector must—
(a) make recommendations; and
(b) give reasons for such recommendations.
 (19) The local planning authority must publish recommendations made under subsection (18).—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 149, in 
clause 14, page 8, line 35, after 'appropriate', insert 
 'within 8 weeks of receipt of the scheme.'. 
Clause 14 stand part 
 Amendment No. 285, in 
clause 15, page 9, line 12, leave out 'scheme' and insert 'plan'. 
Amendment No. 286, in 
clause 15, page 9, line 15, leave out 'scheme' and insert 'plan'. 
Amendment No. 152, in 
clause 16, page 9, line 28, at end insert— 
 '(aa) a strategic planning statement; 
 (ab) the appropriate authority's Local Transport Plan;'. 
Government amendment No. 80 
 Amendment No. 150, in 
clause 16, page 9, line 42, leave out subsection (6). 
Amendment No. 151, in 
clause 16, page 10, line 9, after 'document', insert 'or'. 
Clause 16 stand part 
 Amendment No. 154, in 
clause 18, page 10, line 29, after 'to', insert 'all material considerations including' 
 Government amendment No. 83 
 Clause 18 stand part 
 Amendment No. 155, in 
clause 19, page 11, line 22, at end insert 
 'who will decide whether the examination should be in the form of a public inquiry examination or hearing.' 
Amendment No. 156, in 
clause 19, page 11, line 28, at end insert 'in all material respects.' 
Clause 19 stand part 
 Government amendment No. 2 
 Amendment No. 157, in 
clause 20, page 12, line 3, after first 'a', insert 
 'local development document other than a.' 
Government amendment No. 84 
 Amendment No. 158, in 
clause 20, page 12, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert— 
 '(d) The document may be taken into account for the purposes of developmental control by the authority until the Secretary of State has approved, modified or rejected the document or part (if the direction relates to only part of a document).' 
Clauses 20, 21 and 25 stand part.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This huge group of amendments and new clauses is headed by my new clause 49. At an informal meeting with the Minister during the summer, I said that the real problem with the Bill was the complexity of the local plan-making system. I should add that the new clause, in two pages, would make clauses 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 33, 35 and 36 unnecessary. In other words, what the Opposition do in our new clause would obviate 14 clauses.
 Although I have been through it fairly carefully, the Government could probably find some power that I did not include in my new clause, but I think that I have covered most of what the Government want to achieve in those 14 clauses in two pages. That is a serious indication that we have the opportunity to simplify the local plan-making process. 
 The Government's excellent precursor document, ''Planning: delivering a fundamental change'', received 15,000 responses, one of the largest responses to any Government Green Paper. Paragraph 1.5 of that document is fundamental to all that we are discussing. It states: 
 ''To be successful, the planning system needs to have the confidence of many different groups. These include almost half a million direct customers who are applicants for planning permission every year and who want a quick, predictable and efficient service,''— 
I believe that we can all say amen to that— 
''families and individuals affected by plans and planning applications and the wider community who care about proposals for the future development of their area. All parts of the community -individuals, organisations and businesses -must be able to make their voice heard.'' 
Paragraph 1.6 continues: 
 ''The customers of planning departments have a right to an efficient and user-friendly service. Business, in particular, needs to know that their planning applications will be dealt with efficiently and predictably. Time delays caused by bureaucracy, lack of skilled staff or over-complex systems are bad for business and do little good for anyone else. Delays in receiving a planning decision can mean loss of competitiveness for business, something that we simply cannot afford in the modern global economy.''
We all say amen to that, too. 
 Chapter 2 criticises the current system for its complexity. Paragraph 2.3 states: 
 ''Planning is complex, remote, hard to understand and difficult to access. Issues commonly raised include . . . the multi-layered structure of plans with up to four tiers in some areas -at national, regional, county and local levels. Plans are often out of date and can be inconsistent with one another and with national planning guidance.'' 
Finally, it says: 
''the planning appeal procedure can seem obscure. People find it hard to understand the way in which the system works. Both applicants and others with an interest in a proposed development can find it hard to understand the basis on which decisions are taken.'' 
If that is criticism of the current system, people will be absolutely baffled by the new one. On careful examination, or even if one skims through them, clauses 14 to 36 talk about local development frameworks, local development schemes, local development scheme documents, local development plan documents, development plans and policies. Each of those documents and schemes has a different mechanism for revisions, revocations, making powers for the Secretary of State, powers for the regional body and powers for the local body. 
 The new system is horrendously complicated. I would like to examine it in some detail, but first I shall turn to my new clause, for fear that I be ruled out of order. I start by apologising to the Committee, because there is a typographical error in subsection (11)(c). It says: 
''the spatial development strategy if the authority in a London Borough''. 
That does not, of course, make sense. It should read, ''are a London borough.'' There is some argument about whether an authority is singular or plural, but the new clause definitely contains a typographical error. It is also slightly deficient in that it does not talk about sustainability. 
 Finally, there is insufficient follow-through, because, once the new clause has set up the independent examination, there should be another subsection, subsection (20), which should say something like, ''The local authority or Secretary of State may direct that all, some or none of the independent recommendations shall be incorporated in the plan, following which the Secretary of State may direct the local authority formally to adopt the plan.'' Technically, my new clause does not get as far as adopting the plan, which is obviously a lacuna. 
 Now I shall examine what my new clause does and what the Bill does. Subsection (1) covers all of clause 36. It states: 
 ''The local planning authority must prepare and maintain a plan to be known as the local development plan (''the plan'').'' 
I do not know what could be simpler than that. I do not know why we must talk about local development frameworks, local development schemes, local development documents, local development plan documents, development plans and policy. Why not simply have one plan? Everyone knows what a local development plan is—indeed, the Government use those words in relation to Wales—so for the life of me 
 I cannot see why, if they use them in the part of the Bill that relates to Wales, the name of the documents relating to England cannot be as simple. 
 Subsection (2) deals with what is contained in clause 14—I am sorry that my order is slightly different from the Government's, but that is how things have worked out. It simply says that 
 ''The plan must specify . . . the documents which are to be local development plan documents''. 
If one has a plan, one must have some documents with it; everybody accepts that. The plan must set out the 
''matter and geographical area to which each document is to relate'' 
 ''which documents (if any) are to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities which will be treated the same as if one single authority had prepared it''. 
Again, that is a very simple proposal that in one paragraph deals with what clause 27 deals with. I accept that new clause 49(2)(c) probably does not contain precisely the same powers as those in clause 27, but the new clause has plenty of powers for the Secretary of State to deal with anything not covered elsewhere, and in the Bill there is an ultimate number of powers for the Secretary of State to deal with any matter he wishes. The Bill effectively makes the Secretary of State the complete controller of the planning system. Even though my proposals are simpler, there are plenty of powers left reserved for the Secretary of State. 
 Subsection (2)(d) says that the plan must specify 
''any matter or area in respect of which the authority have agreed (or propose to agree) to the constitution of a joint committee under section 28''. 
That is clear—there should be the power to have joint committees. Finally, the plan must specify 
''the timetable for the preparation and revision of the documents'', 
and, again, 
''such other matters as are prescribed.'' 
That gives the Secretary of State all the powers that he needs but which are not set out in the new clause. 
 Again, as in the Bill, 
 ''The local planning authority may withdraw their plan at any time before it is formally adopted'', 
which is clearly a sensible power. To deal with the matters in clause 33, the local planning authority must both 
''prepare the plan in accordance with such other requirements as are prescribed''— 
again, that gives the Secretary of State plenty of powers—and 
''submit the plan to the Secretary of State at such time as is prescribed or as the Secretary of State (in a particular case) directs''. 
I have tried as much as possible to follow the wording of the Bill, so that there is no legal problem, precedent or anything else. At that time, the planning authority must 
''send a copy of the plan to the RPB or (if the authority are a London borough) to the Mayor of London''.
We do not approve of the regional spatial strategy or the regional planning bodies, as we do not think that that tier is necessary. However, for the purposes of the new clause, I have assumed that the Government are going to steam ahead with their regional planning policies, so I have framed the new clause to give them every power that they need to co-ordinate with the regional planning bodies. 
 Under subsection (4)(d), the planning authority must 
''prepare, publish and have regard to a Statement of Community Involvement as negotiated by Section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c22).'' 
Again, that is largely set out in clause 17. However, it does not need to be spelled out, as it has already been spelled out in a previous local government Act, so why not simply refer to that Act? 
 The new clause continues: 
 ''The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the plan as he thinks appropriate''. 
Unlike the Bill, however, I have included a conciliation safeguard, in that that may happen 
''only when the Secretary of State and Authority cannot agree on any matter.'' 
What is the point of Secretary of State using a huge sledgehammer to crack a nut by issuing directions and enforcing them, when he should try to negotiate with the local authority prior to issuing a direction to see whether the matter can be sorted out amicably? I would bet that in most cases, if the Secretary of State were reasonable, the local authority would be equally reasonable and a compromise would be reached. That of course is what I seek to achieve with subsection (5). 
 Subsection (6) says: 
 ''A direction under subsection (5) . . . must contain the Secretary of State's reasons for giving it.'' 
Again, that is essential, but not contained in the Bill. Where the Secretary of State issues any direction, he should as a matter of course state his reasons for doing so. 
 Skipping on fairly quickly, I deal with the matters in clause 35 in subsection (8), which says: 
 ''The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the following matters'', 
which are set out. Under subsection (9), the local planning authority 
''must revise their local development plan . . . at such time as they consider appropriate; or . . . when directed to do so by the Secretary of State.'' 
Again, however, I should not expect the Secretary of State to issue such a direction; rather, I would expect the Government office in touch with the local planning authority to say, ''Look, your plan hasn't been revised for four or five years. It's about time you considered revising it.'' The authority would surely say, ''Of course, we must get on and do it.'' 
 That brings us back to a fundamental point that is worth reiterating now: rather than producing a whole new Bill with all its complexity, a far better way of dealing with the planning system would have been to make the present system work properly. One of the big problems at present is that a number of authorities 
 have no plan at all. Whatever happens, I hope that when the Bill reaches the statute book, if not before, we shall put a bomb under those authorities and ensure that they produce plans. It is twice as difficult to carry out a development in an area that does not have a proper plan as elsewhere. The real test of the Bill will be if it speeds up the present system and provides greater certainty. 
 Of course, in subsection (10) there have to be provisions for revisions of the plan and the same sort of provisions for revision of anything needed to make the plan in the first place. In subsection (11), which is fairly large, I deal with the matters in clauses 18 and 23—what the local development plan should have to consider. Those are pretty straightforward. Again, I provide a power for the Secretary of State. I do not believe that the Secretary of State should have such a wide power over the planning system, but I have tried to frame the new clause in a way that the Government might accept. Therefore, I have provided most of the powers that are provided for the Secretary of State in the Bill, even though I do not necessarily agree that they should exist. 
 Moving to subsection (12), 
 ''The local planning authority must submit their local development plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination.'' 
We all accept that all local plans, when they are eventually prepared, should be submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination. That is an important stage in the plan-making system. When we reach that independent examination, which is provided for in the Bill, everybody who wishes to object or make representations about the local plan has an opportunity to do so. That comes back to a point that was made this morning: people should feel involved in the planning system, not alienated from it. My fear is that, with the complexity of the Bill, people will feel alienated from their own planning system. If they do feel that, and then an adverse development, of which they do not approve, takes place, they will feel even more aggrieved. We should try to engage people more in their local plan-making system, and I hope to get the Government's agreement to that. 
 Under subsection (13), 
''the authority must not submit such a document'' 
until 
''they have complied with any relevant requirements contained in regulations under this Part, and 
 they are satisfied that the plan is ready for independent examination.'' 
That would be clause 21. Under subsection (14), 
 ''The authority must also send to the Secretary of State (in addition to the development plan) such other documents (or copies of documents) and such information as is prescribed.'' 
That is taken straight out of the Bill. 
 In subsection (15), 
 ''The examination must be carried out by a person ('the independent inspector')''— 
I do not think that that name is given in the Bill, but the function is provided for in clause 26. I go on to describe the purpose of the examination in subsection (16), while in subsection (17), which is a change from the Bill,
 ''Any person who makes representations seeking to change a development plan must (if he so requests) be given the opportunity to submit his representation in writing to the independent inspector, who shall decide whether or not that person shall be heard at the examination.'' 
I would give a warning to the Minister. The way the Bill is drafted, anybody has an opportunity to be heard independently. That means that such a person may give evidence orally. Sometimes, the independent inspector must have the power to curtail some of that process—there is a judicious need for it—because I do not want to conflict with the point that I made this morning about people who turn up wishing to make representations and are told, ''Go away, we want one person to represent all of you.'' 
 When it is clear to the inspector that 40 people have turned up and they are all making the same point, it is reasonable to say, ''We've heard some of your oral evidence; the rest of you must submit something in writing.'' There is a balance to be struck. To say that people have to give evidence orally is to make a rod for the inspector's back. 
 The new clause goes on to say what the independent inspector must do under subsection (18). He must make recommendations and give reasons for them, and they must be published. I do not mind whether they are published by the local authority or the Secretary of State. I have specified the local authority; the Bill says the Secretary of State. Subsection (20), which is missing, would say how the amendments must be incorporated into the plan and how it was to be formally adopted. Contrast that process, which I have gone through in five minutes, or perhaps 10 minutes, with those 15 clauses of the Bill. The problem with those clauses is that they have all the categories that I have mentioned and more, in terms of joint committees and so on, they have their own timetables for preparations, revisions and recommendations, and they will all conflict with each other. If I were a planning officer having to adopt the system outlined in the Bill, I should go boggle-eyed trying to work out what I was supposed to do when. 
 I shall be very interested indeed to hear what the Minister has to say, because I believe that in two pages I have done everything that needs to be done with a local planning system and have also given the Secretary of State every power that he needs. Having read through those 15 clauses, I thought that I understood the measures and that I had got on top of it all. I kept reading and reading, and suddenly I came to a clause that mentioned the policy. I scratched my head and asked myself what on earth the policy was. 
 I had gone through the local development framework, the local development scheme, the local development document, the local plan documents and the development plan, each with a clause setting out exactly what it does, then suddenly I found that there was to be a policy. It is in clause 37(5)—one has to read a long way through part 2 before finding it. The policy encompasses everything else: 
 ''If to any extent a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflicts with another policy in the development plan the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy'',
but we are not told what the policy is, how it is described or what it means. While we have made it clear that there are other parts that we welcome, such as compulsory purchase arrangements, I have to say to the Minister in the strongest possible terms that this is absolute gobbledygook—and to you, Mr. Pike, in the most serious way that I can, that if the Government enact the stuff in this section of the Bill, the planning system will become completely gummed up. Everybody will be alienated from the system because they will not have a clue how it works and that, in time, will do us a great disservice. Let me conclude with paragraph 1.8 of the Government's great planning White Paper: 
 ''We believe in good planning. The present system, by general consent, does not deliver our objectives. We want a system that is capable of reaching decisions that command public confidence and which is seen to be open and fair: A system that underpins our desire to improve productivity by being capable of reaching a proper balance between our desire for economic development and for thriving communities.'' 
Then comes the bit that ought to be in italics: 
''A system that is clear, comprehensible, that comes to robust decisions in a sensible time frame.'' 
Anybody who thinks that the system that the Government have laid down is clear and comes to decisions in a sensible time frame needs to be locked up in a cold shower for a very long time. 
Matthew Green rose—

Peter Pike: Order. I believe that this is an appropriate time for me to suspend the Committee until 4.45 pm. I shall call the hon. Gentleman immediately on resuming.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming— 
 Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. So that we can tailor our proceedings, it would be helpful if the Government told us when the Bill will be considered on Report. Will that be before or after the Queen's Speech? I understand that the Government may say that this is a matter for the business managers, although they may not know at this point what will happen. However, if the Government could give us some indication of that before the Committee concludes at 5.15 pm on Thursday it would help the Opposition and practitioners in making their representations.

Peter Pike: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I do not know whether the Minister can help; otherwise, Members can raise the matter at business questions on Thursday.

Keith Hill: I can assist the Committee in that regard. This is a matter for the business managers and the usual channels, but we expect the Bill to reach the Floor on Report after the Queen's Speech.

Matthew Green: This is huge group of amendments attached to new clause 49. In January, I would have had huge sympathy for the Conservative's new clause. Back then, when we first considered the matter in Committee, the Government's proposed new system was as clear as mud to just about all members of the Committee—without doing anyone a disservice, including probably the Ministers. We also dealt with each clause in detail, one by one, rather than looking at the system as a whole. That was rather unfortunate, because we did not discuss the principles of the system. As a result, it appeared very confusing. It looked likely to lead to a breakdown in the current planning system while people took years to sort out what they were supposed to be doing.
 Having looked at the matter for nine months, I am now a great deal happier about the Government's proposal—it is potentially an improvement to the current planning system and I will not support new clause 49 for that reason. The problem at the moment is essentially that local plans, for those areas that have them, take a long time to draw up. Although they are supposed to be done every five years, the process stretches further. Both my local authorities are revising their local plan, which takes a couple of years. That is without going to a public inquiry. 
 In the meantime in South Shropshire, for instance, where there is a lack of business development land on the old plan, the council needs to allocate more land. It has a planning application coming forward, which has been approved. However, it will end up on the Secretary of State's desk because it is contrary to the current local plan even though it is in the draft of the new local plan that will come into effect in 18 months. It has to do that because of time constraints, yet it was two years ago that it started looking at the issue of business development land and held an inquiry in public. 
 What the Government are trying to create with the local development schemes and local development documents is, roughly, a box file on the shelf with a series of folders in it. The box file is the local development scheme and the folders are local development documents. Every time that the local authority wants to amend one of the sectors, be it business development land, housing numbers or whatever, it pulls out a folder, revises it—which is a lot quicker than revising an entire local plan—and puts it back. There is a rolling framework of plans. 
 I hope that I have explained that relatively straightforwardly. Sadly, in January no one did. The Government have a selling job to do because, frankly, people in the industry do not understand the measure either. It will be a huge step forward, provided that all the detail is got right. That is where the amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) come in. I shall go through them one by one. 
 The proposal in amendment No. 149 was also debated in January. Giving the Secretary of State an eight-week deadline would ensure that the preparation by a local authority of a local development scheme was not delayed because the authority had to wait for the 
 Secretary of State to decide whether to issue a direction. Interestingly, in January the then Minister said, in effect, that having an eight-week deadline would create delay. That was fascinating to us at the time—how would a maximum deadline create delay?—but that is what the Minister said. 
 To sum it up, the Government's position was, ''Don't worry. Leave it up to us. We'll know when to intervene. We don't need a timetable.'' My response was that I had every confidence that the then Minister was good at doing that, so perhaps we could have confidence in leaving it up to him to move quickly. I am sure that the new planning Minister will also have every ability to do that, but due to the rate at which the Government get through planning Ministers we can never have any confidence as to whether there will be a Minister who shifts things through quickly. It is particularly pertinent to hear the Government again try to justify why an eight-week deadline would delay the process. I think it would ensure that the process moved along swiftly.

Sydney Chapman: I give the hon. Gentleman support, because in any case his amendment says
''within 8 weeks of receipt of the scheme.'' 
If it could be dealt with more quickly, it would be.

Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which adds to my argument. I am intrigued to hear the Government try to justify refusing the amendment this time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves amendment No. 149, I put it to him that a much better mechanism would be the one that I proposed in my new clause: before the Secretary of State issues any direction to a local planning authority, he should try talking to it and negotiating peacefully first. Only in the dire situation in which he cannot agree with the authority should he issue a direction.

Matthew Green: In principle yes, but I still think that an eight-week time frame would be sufficient for that to be carried out. The difficulty is that because new clause 49 would not allow the flexibility of the Government's approach, the detail becomes hard to support.
 Amendment No. 152, for which I am grateful to the Campaign to Protect Rural England, would formalise the link between the local development framework and the regional spatial strategy. It would ensure that the local development framework took account of the appropriate authority's local transport plan when appropriate. Again, that is fairly straightforward and it should be a welcome development. I am sure that the Minister will say that it will happen anyway, but if it will let us have it in the Bill and make it clear. 
 Amendment No. 150 would require the definition of those local development documents that are development plan documents and details of their form, content and production to be included in the Bill, but not in secondary legislation. The amendment, in deleting subsection (6), would force the Government to set those out as the Bill is confused about local development. Under the present system, each local 
 planning authority has a single development plan, but in future there will be a package of local development documents, differing from one authority to another, not all of which will have the status of a development plan document. The issue of status is critical. We want the definition of a development plan document to be included in the Bill, rather than relying on regulation to make it clearer to practitioners.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. Does he accept that having one term instead of six means that we do not need the different definitions that have to be amended in case they are not perfect?

Matthew Green: The Government have made a slight mistake in renaming things. They could have referred to local plans rather than local development schemes and had folders for those plans, which would have been more simple. People would have understood the term because they had used it before. It seems that when drafting new legislation the draftsmen go along the shelves, pick out the terms they have not used for a while and use them as headers. They refer to local development schemes rather than local plans.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Frameworks, policies.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is right—there are lots of new headings, which could have been made easier to understand, although the system that the Government propose will work quicker and be more effective in delivering change in what used to be called the local plan.

Mark Francois: Could not the Government talk about one plan, which might contain a number of different chapters? It would thus be possible to update individual chapters independently, which would achieve the objective.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has found another descriptive term. He says chapter, I say folder—we can pick our own words. Yes, this could have been called the local plan rather than the local development scheme. That would have given people more reassurance, as many constituents have no idea what the matter involves and those who have just discovered what it is about will find that the name has been changed. That could have been avoided, but I will not be overly critical as the proposal is trying to achieve the right objectives.
 I am grateful to the Law Society for amendment No. 151, which seeks to clarify the basis on which a document is to be regarded as a local development document. Clause 16(7) determines that a document can be treated as a local development document only in so far as it has been adopted by the local planning authority and approved by the Secretary of State. It would speed the process considerably—the Minister wants more haste in it—if the conditions could stand as alternatives. That would not allow the authority to create a local development document against the wishes of the Secretary of State, because clause 19 requires the authority to submit every local development plan document to him for independent 
 examination. It would, however, allow it to move on faster. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the amendment. 
 I am also grateful to the Law Society for amendment No. 154, which clarifies the factors to which local planning authorities must have regard when preparing a local development document. In doing so, the planning authority should have regard to all material considerations. That is a basic requirement of the planning system. At present, the relevant subsection contains a list of 10 matters to which the local planning authority should have regard in preparing local development documents, and that list appears to be exclusive. The amendment would make it clear that authorities must have regard to all the listed matters and also to any other material considerations. It would allow more to be taken into account than just the 10 considerations listed by the Government. 
 Amendment No. 155 is designed to clarify the nature of the independent examination to which each development plan document is to be subjected. Clause 19 is silent on the nature of the independent examination. The amendment would clarify that it is a matter for the inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to undertake the independent examination to determine whether a public inquiry or a hearing would be most appropriate. 
 In future, development plan documents will cover a range of different types of document. There will be some that can be examined by means of a hearing, while others will necessitate a full public inquiry. A strong case exists for subjecting to effective scrutiny at an inquiry documents that have a status equivalent to the current development plan and which can affect the value of property through the designation of particular sites. The amendment would ensure that the nature of that examination was spelled out in the Bill. 
 Amendment No. 156 would insert the words ''in all material respects''. It is designed to provide a more useful criterion for the definition of the purpose of an independent examination of a development plan document. Clause 19(5)(b) states: 
 ''The purpose of an independent examination is to determine . . . whether it is sound.'' 
The amendment came from the Law Society, which is not happy with the word ''sound'' on its own, and would like to add ''in all material respects''; I think that that is right. It says that the additional purpose of determining whether a document is sound is both meaningless and an opening for legal challenge. The secondary requirement, with the relating the subjective soundness to material planning considerations, would be more relevant and comprehensible.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: After those nine months that he has told us about, the hon. Gentleman obviously has intimate knowledge of how the Government propose to organise things, so can he tell the Committee why the Government require under clause 19 that the local plan development document shall be subject to an
 independent examination, yet the local development scheme, which is what stands at the top of the hierarchy, shall not be subject to local independent examination? Are we not talking about just another complication and inconsistency in the Bill, with all these categories of documents?

Matthew Green: No, I do not think so. That scheme is another name for the outer cover of the folder. We would not want an inquiry into whether it was to be a red, a blue or a yellow folder. It is the sub-folders within it that will be scrutinised. The local development scheme is just an encompassing measure, not a document in itself.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If we are talking about the cover alone, can the hon. Gentleman explain why clause 14(2)(e) states that the local development scheme may specify
''any matter or area in respect of which the authority have agreed (or proposed to agree) to the constitution of a joint committee under section 28''? 
That seems pretty wide, and clause 14(2)(g) is even wider: 
''such other matters as are prescribed.'' 
The list of matters could be huge. Why should it not be subject to independent examination?

Matthew Green: At the risk of doing the Minister's job, may I explain that as I understand it, the scheme specifies the list of folders and their contents. In the case of the joint committees, the type of area under which a committee has been set up may be specified, and presumably that is yet another folder within the scheme. The outside of the folder will include a table of contents, which is an attempt to make it intelligible.
 I can see that the hon. Member for Cotswold is going to enjoy himself by asking me questions that he should direct to the Minister. I think that I had just dealt with amendment No. 156, which, the Committee will be delighted to hear, means that there are only two to go. 
 The Law Society suggested amendment No. 157. The amendment's purpose is to make clause 20 consistent with itself and to avoid duplication of review by the Secretary of State. I will take a little bit of time to explain that. Clause 20 is intended to deal with local development documents. Clause 19 ensures that all development plan documents—that is to say, the development plan documents of the local development documents—are submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination. Clause 22(4) ensures that the modifications proposed by the Secretary of State's independent examiner are incorporated in the development plan documents. However, clause 23 as drafted would also allow the Secretary of State to call in any development plan document, which is unnecessary because they will be submitted to him anyway under clause 19. A two-stage process is both unnecessary and potentially likely to cause delay, which the Minister is desperately keen to avoid. 
 The Law Society also suggested amendment No. 158. The amendment would enable development plan documents agreed by a local planning authority but 
 subject to a direction by the Secretary of State to be treated as a material consideration for development control purposes pending the final decision of the Secretary of State on the document. Any development plan document agreed by a local planning authority should reflect the authority's intentions for the area covered by the document. The only obstacle to its adoption would be intervention by the Secretary of State. 
 The outcome of the direction by the Secretary of State may be a modification of the document, and in the interim it would be reasonable for the local planning authority to use it as a basis for development control decisions. If nothing else, it would serve to encourage the Secretary of State to proceed with dispatch. If the document were awful, he would have to move very fast to ensure that no decisions were taken on the basis of it. 
 I have run through the nine amendments tabled in my name as quickly as possible, and I will now comment briefly on the Government amendments, all of which I can support. They are all helpful in trying to make the legislation work. I cannot support new clause 49, but I hope that the Minister will look favourably on at least some of my nine amendments.

Keith Hill: Our main focus must be on new clause 49, which contains an alternative to the new local planning arrangements in the Bill. It is grouped with a large and varied set of amendments that address some of the most important clauses in part 2.
 I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow for his helpful and constructive remarks, and I assure him that we will continue to consider his amendments carefully. I liked the image of a box file—a rolling framework—of plans that he produced to describe the Government's proposals. I thought of them as a shelf in a filing cabinet, from which one can take out or slot in to make changes in individual aspects of the plan. I am sure that there is an IT equivalent of that image, but I am rather old-fashioned as well as rather elderly, and I think of these plans as a concertina file that can be opened and things can be slotted in or out according to what needs to be added and what needs to be removed or revised. 
 The hon. Member for Cotswold asked about what he asserted were the confusions of the development scheme. It is essentially an implementation plan. I had the great privilege of meeting the representatives of three high-performing planning authorities yesterday in my office at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. They were Middlesbrough, which is a Labour authority, North Wiltshire, a Liberal authority, and Wychavon, a Conservative authority. As ever in such situations, my response was an open-minded, impartial and non-partisan endorsement of the enormous leap forward in performance that those authorities have made. 
 I thought of that when I listened to earlier debates about resources. The central emphasis of the councillors and planners that I met was that at the heart of the change that had been secured was a change of culture—a change of approach to planning to make 
 the system proactive and dynamic, and one that is supported and instigated by elected members as well as by the planners themselves. 
 The distinguished chief planner for Middlesbrough gave me a copy of the Middlesbrough local action plan for 2000-01. It sets out exactly what is to be achieved in the following 12 months—the areas to be addressed and the dates by which things are to be done. It is an implementation plan and a development scheme—it is as simple as that. Because it sets out targets and deadlines, there is no need for it, like other elements of our proposals, to be subject to independent examination.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If the document was prepared in 2000-01, it was prepared under the present system. Does that not show that the present system can be made to work?

Keith Hill: That is a neat point, but this is best practice: we look, we learn, and what we are seeking to do for our planning reform package is to learn from the many examples of success in the country and embrace them in our legislative proposals so that they can be rolled out more generally.
 I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cotswold; he has been true to his word. He said that he would come up with an alternative and he has attempted to do so: it is a serious piece of work, and I want to offer a comprehensive response to it. 
 I am alert to the possibility of confusion if I accept many interventions, so with the Committee's indulgence, I will make my speech first before attempting to deal with any points that hon. Members may have. I stress that they will have the opportunity to respond. Opposition Members took 45 minutes to make their points. I will endeavour to take less time to make mine. 
 The debate goes to the heart of our reasons for wanting to reform planning at the local level. The reforms are designed to tackle some fundamental problems. First, it takes too long to put a plan in place. From start to finish, it takes at least four years on average, but it can take as long as nine years. All authorities should have adopted a local or unitary development plan by 1996. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that 31 authorities—nearly 10 per cent.—have failed to do so. 
 Secondly, it takes too long to update a plan. The hon. Member for Ludlow will be interested to learn that 176 plans are out of date. They no longer reflect the realities faced by many communities. Thirdly, our plans are packed with policies—between 200 and 300 is not unusual. Those policies try to cover every type of development and often overlap or duplicate each other. That makes it extremely hard to be clear about which developments might happen where. Rather than setting out a clear strategy for development, plans have become long and complicated rule books for development control. Fourthly, it is difficult to be flexible and to take account of changing circumstances 
 in the plan. Finally, it is hard for residents and businesses to participate in such a slow, complicated and inaccessible process. 
 A few illustrations will show why those problems matter. Let us suppose that I want planning permission for a major development involving housing, retail and leisure. That would involve so many policies from different parts of a unitary development plan, many of them overlapping, that I would find it difficult to understand what the plan meant for my application. What if my application failed, but a virtually identical one succeeded? Where similar applications come up against differently worded and overlapping policies, there is a much greater chance that the emphasis placed on the policies and their application will differ. Plans can be unclear and the decisions taken under them can be inconsistent. 
 Suppose that a factory in my town were to close down unexpectedly, thus providing the opportunity for comprehensive regeneration of the area. To give certainty and confidence to developers and the public about the regeneration, the local authority would need to prepare an alteration to its development plan. That would take as long as preparing a whole new plan. It would also mean delays while objectors argued with the LPA about whether objections referring to other policies in the plan, which had not been altered, could be considered. Although it is for the LPA to determine whether an objection to such a linked policy could be considered, it would not wish to be seen to be imposing its judgment without first having tried to persuade the objector. That is partly why some authorities are reluctant to alter their plans and why, when they do, it can take as long to adopt as a replacement plan. 
 It is hard for the community to engage with proposals. What do our communities and businesses need? They need a simpler, clearer approach, which is faster and more flexible and with which they can more easily become involved. That is what the local planning arrangements in the Bill will help to deliver. 
 Would new clause 49 deliver that? Would it be an improvement on our system? It has two main features. Although it is confusing—it refers to a single plan in some parts and to local development plan documents in others—it appears that each authority would have a single plan. That would be instead of a separate local development scheme, a set of development plan documents and supplementary planning documents. Under PPS12, which we circulated to the Committee before the sitting, that set of documents will be called the local development framework—LDF for short. 
 The second main feature of the new clause is that people who had made a representation seeking a change to a plan would not have the right to appear at the examination. The person carrying out the examination would look at written representations only if people had specifically asked for that. 
 Under subsection 1 of the new clause, a local planning authority would prepare a plan to be known as the local development plan. It would have to list in 
 its plan local development plan documents and what they would cover; which documents would be prepared jointly with other LPAs; anything agreed or proposed to be done by a joint committee; the timetable for preparing and revising the documents; and other matters set out in regulations. The LPA would be able to withdraw its plan at any time before adoption. The Secretary of State would be able to direct the LPA to make changes to its plan, but only if he and the LPA could not agree on any matter—presumably what changes should be made. 
 If I understand the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold correctly, its first main advantage is that there is only one document, which should cover everything, including policies and proposals, the timetable for putting them together and details of joint working. Its second main advantage is that the name ''plan'' is one that people recognise and are used to, but there are many more disadvantages compared with our system. The first is that the new clause would be less clear. There is nothing to prevent LPAs from making their plans far too complicated, including myriad policies with no long-term strategy. That would lead to confusion and uncertainty for everyone. 
 However, under regulations in part 2 of the Bill, an LPA's local development framework will be made up of clear elements, each with a clear status. There will be a core strategy for at least 10 years, a proposals map showing how all the land in the authority's area is to be developed or conserved and area action plans if LPAs want them, showing what will happen in areas where there will be a lot of change, or which areas are to be kept as they are. All those elements will be part of the development plan, so they will be in the form of development plan documents, or DPDs. There may also be documents that give more detail on policies in the core strategy and area action plans, or set out policies on design. Those elements will be in the form of local development documents that are not DPDs. Regulations call such documents supplementary planning documents, or SPDs, and they will not be part of the development plan. 
 Our proposals allow people to see what the LPA's strategy is, with fewer, clearer, more important policies. People will be able to find any detailed proposals for the area where they live or run a business. In our system the contents will be much clearer for the user. In turn, that means that decisions are much more likely to be consistent. 
 The second disadvantage of the new clause is that people would have to wait longer for up-to-date policies. As is the case now, it would be only when the entire plan was ready that it could come into effect. Progress would be determined by the elements of the plan that took the longest. Being able to withdraw only the entire plan, even if only parts were not working, could also mean delay in adopting new policies. I cannot see how the new clause could cut the five to 10 years it takes now to prepare a unitary development plan or local plan. Under our system, there will be no need to wait until the LPA has done all the work needed for a comprehensive plan. For example, its key 
 strategic policies can be prepared, examined and adopted as soon as they are ready through the core strategy and more detail can come forward later through area action plans. 
 We are committed to ensuring that all LPAs have a local development scheme in place by the end of 2004 and that they have delivered the agreed components of the local development framework in line with that scheme by March 2007. They can do that because of the system we are introducing—the LDF—and the quicker procedures from start to adoption. 
 The third disadvantage of the hon. Gentleman's new clause is that it would be less flexible and harder to update—either something is in the plan or it does not exist. In addition, the local planning authority can withdraw only the whole plan, even if only parts of it need to be prepared or revised from scratch. It retains the straitjacket of having to produce or amend one comprehensive document, with all the time and complications that involves. 
 Under our system, local planning authorities will be able to prepare not only development plan documents, which will be part of the development plan and open to public examination, but supplementary planning documents, which will be quicker and easier to prepare. Those documents—or SPDs—will not be part of the development plan, but they are likely to contain important material considerations. A local planning authority will be able to produce just a single integrated development plan document or a series of documents, depending on local circumstances. 
 Local planning authorities want the flexibility to produce different documents or alter those that already exist as and when they are needed. Individual parts of the local development framework—the DPDs and the SPDs—can be updated, or new bits prepared separately. We believe that that will be clearer to, and more manageable for, local people than revising parts of a single plan. Unlike the current system, a local planning authority will find it much easier to react to changing circumstances on the ground. It could deal with a factory closure leading to a regeneration opportunity by preparing an area action plan, as in the example I gave earlier. 
 Every local planning authority, as the leader for its community, should have a proper spatial planning strategy for its area and keep it up to date. Our system will ensure that that can happen. If there were a single plan, as is proposed in the new clause, that would be much harder for authorities and stakeholders to do. It would perpetuate one of the central problems with the current system. 
 A fourth disadvantage of the hon. Gentleman's new clause is that it would do less to help a community's businesses and other interested parties participate in planning. The new clause contains a statement of community involvement, but there is no requirement for the local planning authority to comply with that when preparing its plan. Under our arrangements, each local planning authority must have a statement of community involvement. There will also be regulations setting out the minimum amount that a 
 local authority must do. The statement of community involvement will set out how the authority should deliver that minimum and anything it intends to do. 
 That is not all. It will be easier for the community to get involved with local development frameworks made up of individual DPDs and SPDs than with a single plan. That is because people can choose what to focus on, whether it is the core strategy setting out the local planning authority's policies for the next decade, details about what may happen in their area or every DPD and SPD in the local planning authority's local development framework as it is developed. 
 There are other problems with the hon. Gentleman's new clause. As he can tell, I am taking his proposals seriously. It is not sensible to include the project timetable in the plan. That would mix up policies and the programme for preparing them. That is not necessary and it is not compatible with the plan-led system, where planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise. 
 It would be confusing for people if their local planning authority had a single plan, but some of what it contains, such as documents, a preparation timetable or working details—what people generally understand a plan to be—was not part of the development plan. It would also be difficult to change the project timetable or joint working arrangements. The local planning authority would have to go through the full procedures for revising the plan, including an independent examination. That is surely not worth while. Under our arrangements, the project plan for preparing the local development documents that make up the local development framework and for keeping the local development framework up to date is rightly kept separate, and altered in a way that is sensible. 
 I now come to rights to appear at the independent ex amination. Under subsection (17), 
 ''Any person who makes representations seeking to change a development plan'' 
will have the right to put his representation in writing to the inspector, the person appointed to carry out the examination. The inspector 
''shall decide whether . . . that person shall be heard at the examination.'' 
Under the Bill as drafted, the inspector will hear all representations, and anyone who has made a representation seeking a change to a development plan document has the right to be heard at the examination. I understand that the examination may be quicker if the inspector sees only those written representations that people have specifically asked to be put to him, and if he decides that not everyone who has made a representation seeking a change is to be heard at the examination. 
 However, I put it to the Committee that the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits. How can the plan properly take account of community views if the inspector does not consider written representations that people have not asked him to or have forgotten to 
 ask him to consider? It would also remove a long-standing right that is strongly supported across all sectors. That was clear from the responses to our Green Paper and from the Select Committee's report on it. We listened. The person carrying out the examination can decide how best to hear oral representations—whether at a round table session, an informal hearing or in an inquiry format—while ensuring that examination goes as quickly as possible. 
 The accusation implicit in the new clause is that our system is complicated because it is made up of a series of component parts. I entirely disagree. Our system boils down to this: at present, each local planning authority has a single local or unitary development plan. Many local planning authorities have extra pieces of administrative supplementary planning guidance, as well as their plan. As we know, some authorities have yet to adopt a plan at all, and many have plans that are out of date. 
 Under the Bill—and the regulations and guidance that fill in the detail—each local authority will have a single local development framework. That will be made up of a set of local development documents. Those that set out the most important policies and proposals for determining planning applications will be called development plan documents. The others will, under the regulations, be called supplementary planning documents. Under our system, a local planning authority will be able to produce just one single integrated development plan document, or a number of separate documents. It will be up to them. 
 At present, local authorities do not have to set out when their plan will be ready. Under the Bill, local planning authorities will draw up a timetable for preparing their local development plan documents, and they will have to follow it. That is a new requirement, but one that is very much needed, and I make no apology for it. 
 We have a plan-led system. That means that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At present, local or unitary development plans are part of the development plan. Under the Bill, it is quite clear that development plan documents will be part of the development plan. Supplementary planning documents can be a material consideration. It is simply not true to say that our system is complicated; it will be clearer, more flexible and faster than the one we have now. I do not believe that the alternative proposal in the new clause would be simple. Actually, it would be complicated and muddled, and as it would keep many of the features of the current system that caused such problems, it would be much worse than the arrangements in the Bill. 
 I now turn to the amendments in this group. Later, I shall speak to the Government amendments. Amendment No. 149, in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow, would limit the period of time for the Secretary of State to consider draft local development schemes to eight weeks. As I hope I have demonstrated, we need the local development scheme 
 to tackle the serious problems of delays under the current system, in which it takes more than five years and as many as 10, to put a plan in place. However, we must face the possibility that some local authorities will propose a set of local development documents that are inadequate, or an unacceptably slow timetable for preparing them. 
 The Secretary of State's power to direct changes to an authority's local development scheme would be used only as a last resort. Authorities will need to have discussions with the relevant Government office at an early stage on the draft scheme. We expect problems to be resolved without having to use the last resort of a direction. We want schemes to be up and running quickly so that authorities can get on with their work. In the normal course of events, we expect that to happen four weeks after the Secretary of State receives a scheme from a local planning authority. 
 We will set out in regulations that the Secretary of State will have four weeks to consider the local planning authority's scheme once submitted. That scheme will come into effect if he tells the local planning authority during that period that he does not intend to direct it to make changes. It will also come into effect if the authority does not hear from him during the period, or if he directs the local planning authority to make changes to the scheme and it complies or he withdraws the direction. 
 The Secretary of State may give the authority notice that he needs more time to consider the scheme. That may be necessary if the submitted scheme does not contain all the information that he needs to make a decision. The notice will say how much more time he needs, and it would be wrong to limit artificially how long that could be. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow, I do not agree that an eight-week deadline would delay the process, but I understand the case for an element of flexibility. The provisions in the Bill and the regulations ensure that the key project planning document is robust and sets a timetable that people can have confidence in, while keeping burdens on authorities and bureaucracy to a minimum. 
 Amendment No. 152 seems to be designed to ensure that all relevant land use planning and transport documents are considered as part of the planning process at the local level. Better joining up of strategies, policies and programmes that are not directly about land use is one of the main objectives of the reforms to local planning. Our approach is strategic and comprehensive, through a primary duty in the Bill, as set out in clause 16(3), and Government policy as set out in PPS12, which makes it clear that, under the new system, local development documents should 
''provide an agreed vision for an area signed up to by the community and stakeholders. This will involve linking strategies and programmes that exist at the local level through the planning system''. 
They should also 
''not be restricted to matters that may be implemented through the planning system. Spatial expression will therefore need to be given to those elements of other strategies and programmes, particularly 
the community strategy, which relate to the use and development of land. This could include regeneration . . . housing . . . and social issues.'' 
PPS1 will stress the new spatial nature of the whole planning system, and regional level planning will also be on a spatial basis. 
 The range of policies, programmes and strategies that will need to be joined with and given spatial expression in local development documents is wide. The comprehensive, strategic approach of the reforms means that we have not given local planning authorities an exhaustive list. Although I agree with the intention behind the amendment, it is neither necessary nor sensible. The nature of the relevant documents can alter, even in the space of a few years. For example, local transport plans did not exist until 1998. We believe that it is better to set out a broad framework in the legislation, describing the relevant documents generally, and then to leave it to policy statements and good practice guidance to specify particular documents. This will give us a system that is flexible and robust. 
 Government amendment No. 80 is for clarification and caters for a situation in which a policy and supporting text in a local development document conflict or appear to conflict. It makes it clear that the policy prevails in such an event. Of course, such an event should not happen, but we need a safeguard in case it does. Government amendment No. 80 is such a safeguard, and I hope that the Committee will support it. I am grateful for the support shown by the hon. Member for Ludlow. 
 Amendment No. 150 would remove the specific power for the Secretary of State to make regulations that set out which local development documents must be development plan documents, the form and content of local development documents, and the time at which any step in their preparation must be taken. I am aware that some members of the Committee believe that the Secretary of State should have no powers to make regulations and that perhaps all the detail should be in the Bill. I am also aware that others do not agree that there should be different types of document in the new system. 
 We have now published for consultation draft regulations for that purpose and for part 2 of the Bill as a whole. The regulations specify, for example, that the local planning authorities' core strategy will be a development plan document, as will the proposals map and any other site-specific policies or proposals. We want local authorities to decide what local development documents are suitable for their area, but it is right that certain core documents must be development plan documents and must undergo independent examination. We believe that regulations are the place in which to set out the detail of that, and we have published them in draft for everyone to comment on. The local authority will be able to specify other local development documents in their scheme as development plan documents or otherwise, depending on their content. In order to have certainty and confidence in the plan-led system, it is important that the key policies that will be used to determine the grant or refusal of planning permission and the proposals for 
 the development or use of specific areas of land are properly consulted on and are subject to independent examination. 
 Amendment No. 151 seeks to insert the word ''or'' to make the position clear. I contend that it is unnecessary, and I am disappointed to see it after the former Minister in the Department who led the consideration of the Bill, my distinguished colleague, now the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), wrote to the hon. Member for Ludlow following a debate on an identical amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor on the Committee. When clause 16(7) is read with clause 22, which deals with the adoption of local development documents, and with clauses 20 and 26, which deal with the Secretary of State's powers of intervention and default, it is clear that clauses 16(7)(a) and (b) are not cumulative but alternatives. 
 The clause simply states when a document becomes a local development document in its final form. There are two routes by which a document will do this: first, by adoption by the local authority; secondly, in the case of development plan documents only, by approval by the Secretary of State. Only one can apply to any local development document or part of a local development document at any time. 
 Amendment No. 154 seeks to insert a reference to material considerations before the list of matters in clause 18(2), to which the local authority must have regard in preparing local development documents. It would simply add words and no value. 
 Government amendment No. 83 makes express provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out any documents that should be prepared by local planning authorities in connection with the preparation of local development documents and their form and content. It brings part 2 into line with part 1, in which clause 5(5)(b) and (c) makes that express provision. We have included one such document in our draft regulations on part 2—a consultation statement for a development plan document that sets out whom the local planning authority has consulted, how the issues were raised and how the authority has addressed them. 
 Amendment No. 155 would provide that the person holding the examination should decide whether an appearance should be in the form of a public inquiry, an examination or a hearing. I agree that this person should take this decision. Inspectors are best placed to decide how the examination should be organised, as they see all the evidence. They are best placed to judge the most effective way of exploring the issues that the representations cover. The Bill does not need to say that that is a decision for the inspector, and it does not need to specify the options. The Bill guarantees that there will always be an examination of a development plan document. Guidance is more suitable for everything else. 
 Amendment No. 156 would define a purpose of the independent examination as determining the soundness of a development plan document ''in all 
 material respects''. It is entirely unnecessary. The assessment of whether a document is sound must encompass all relevant matters. 
 Draft planning policy statement 12, which was circulated to the Committee, sets out the criteria by which the examination will assess the soundness of development plan documents. It asks whether the development is spatial; whether it takes into account other relevant strategies; whether it conforms to national and regional policy; whether it contains a coherent course strategy; whether it has a robust and credible evidence base; whether it has clear delivery mechanisms; whether it is realistic; whether it can deal with changing circumstances; whether it is consistent with other development plan documents; whether it has taken proper account of community views; and whether it has been prepared following proper procedures. The amendment would add words but no value. 
 Government amendment No. 2 is a technical amendment clarifying that the Secretary of State can direct an authority to modify a local development document and that he has the power to withdraw that document. The hon. Member for Cotswold should welcome the amendment, as he is keen that the Secretary of State should direct only when the Secretary of State and the authority do not agree. 
 The Secretary of State may set out in detail precisely the type of modification that he wishes to see made to a local development document. The authority may return with an alternative suggestion, which, although it does not exactly comply with the direction, meets the intention behind it. When that happens, it has always been our intention that the Secretary of State should accept the local authority's suggestion and withdraw the direction to modify it, if it is appropriate to do so. The amendment puts the scope to act in that way beyond doubt. 
 Amendment No. 157 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to call in development plan documents for his approval, and give him that power over local development documents, which are known as supplementary planning documents, not development plan documents. 
 I am puzzled by the amendment. On the one hand, it would place an unnecessary degree of control in the hands of the Secretary of State but, on the other, it would remove an essential safeguard over the contents of the development plan. It is perhaps based on a misunderstanding of how the new system will work and the purpose of the Secretary of State's powers in clause 20. 
 Normally, the local planning authority will prepare development plan documents and supplementary planning documents. It will submit only development plan documents to the Secretary of State under clause 19, and it will submit them not so that he might review them, but for independent examination. 
 Normally, the local planning authority will adopt the development plan documents and supplementary planning documents that it has prepared. It will adopt 
 development plan documents after consultation and independent examination and incorporate the recommendations of the person conducting the examination, and it will adopt supplementary planning documents after consultation alone. There will not be an independent examination of those documents. 
 Clause 20 contains powers for the Secretary of State to intervene if he thinks that the development plan document or the supplementary planning document is unsatisfactory. Under clause 21, he may direct changes to either type of document. Under clause 23, he may direct a local planning authority to submit a development plan document, or any part of it, to him for his approval. That is generally referred to as the Secretary of State's call-in power. It is a necessary safeguard, because development plan documents will be part of the development plan, in line with which planning applications will be decided unless material considerations determine otherwise. It is emphatically not the duplication of the process for submitting a development plan document to the Secretary of State for independent examination. 
 The Government amendment is a small, technical but important amendment. Clause 20(4)(c) covers a situation in which an authority has submitted a development plan document to the Secretary of State for examination and the Secretary of State issues a direction requiring a development plan document or any part of it to be submitted to him for approval. In such circumstances, clause 20(4)(c) requires the person who is going to carry out the examination always to make his recommendations directly to the Secretary of State. In practice, that may not be possible. The person responsible may have already made his responses before the Secretary of State issues a direction, so would not be able to make them directly to the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 84 deals with that glitch. 
 Amendment No. 158 would enable a document or part of a document that the Secretary of State has called in for approval to be taken into account in development control decisions before he has approved, modified or rejected the document or part. The effect of that could be to allow planning applications to be considered against policies that the Secretary of State found to be so flawed as to warrant rejection. That is clearly not acceptable. 
 I concede that I have spoken at great length and covered a lot of ground. I started by reminding the Committee of the problems with local and unitary development plans and how they are made. I shall conclude by summing up why I believe that the arrangements for local planning in those clauses of the Bill covered here are right for our communities. They are simpler, clearer, faster and more flexible with better community involvement. 
 First, the local development scheme will be a local planning authority's project plan for preparing its local development framework and keeping it up to date, and the authority will have to stick to it. The scheme is not relevant to deciding planning applications, so it will be free-standing. The Secretary 
 of State will see it, but it will not have to go through procedures designed for a plan to become live. It will no longer be possible for a local planning authority to take twice as much time as its better performing neighbours. 
 Secondly, local development documents are the components of a local planning authority's local development framework. Every authority will have a core strategy setting out its key spatial policies for at least a decade, and a proposals map. A local planning authority may choose to have area action plans setting out details for areas where much will change, or much will be conserved. Those elements of the local development framework will be development plan documents. There will be an independent examination, which will be part of the development plan. A local planning authority may also choose to have other local development documents, to be called supplementary planning documents. There will be no independent examination and there can be material considerations. 
 People will no longer have to cope with as many as 300 policies to try to establish what development might be possible in their neighbourhood. The key policies will be clearly set out. The detail for individual areas will be together in one place. People will not have to wait until the local planning authority has done all the work needed for a single plan covering all issues before anything is adopted and up-to-date policies bite on planning applications. It will be much easier to update individual documents or prepare new ones, than to revise an entire plan or alter part of it. People will be able to focus and make representations on those parts of the local planning authority's local development framework that interest them. They will not have to trawl through a long, complicated plan to find out what they want to examine. 
 Thirdly, there will be an independent examination of every development plan document. The person appointed to carry it out will decide how best to organise it. He or she will consider whether the development plan document is sound. Everyone who has made a representation seeking a change to a development plan document will have the right to be heard. The local planning authority will have to accept the recommendations that the person carrying out the examination makes. That stage in the process where the local planning authority decides which of the recommendations arising from the inquiry it will accept or reject, and takes representations before adoption—the cause of much delay—will be eliminated. 
 Fourthly, there will be proportionate powers for the Secretary of State to intervene. He will be able to direct changes to a supplementary planning document or development plan document and call in the latter to approve it himself, although only if he thinks the document is unsatisfactory. 
 Fifthly, there will be the option to withdraw an individual element of the local development framework—a development plan document or supplementary planning document—if the local planning authority believes that it is better to start it 
 from scratch. A statement of community involvement will also set out the local planning authority's policy, which must at least meet the requirements on community involvement in regulations and may include more. Instead of waiting to react to proposals that are almost fixed, people will be able to say what they think at the outset and remain involved as documents are worked up. 
 Those elements all contribute to achieving our goals. Each needs to be defined because it serves a purpose. We want plan making to be faster, we want plans to be simpler, clearer and flexible so that they can be more easily updated, and we want to strengthen community involvement in plans. Our arrangements do just that. 
 I have spoken for 45 minutes, which was exactly the time taken by the Opposition in making their arguments.

Sydney Chapman: The Minister spoke at length and most powerfully. I am extremely grateful for what he said, whether I agree with him or not. It is important that he took time to discuss the proposals, including new clause 49, because they deal with the guts of part 2, which covers local development. We will be asked to approve seven clauses that deal with the local development scheme and the local development document, its preparation, withdrawal and revision, the independent examination and the intervention of the Secretary of State.
 I want to speak to new clause 49, which I support. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, who has been burning the midnight oil. With great diligence, he has tried to simplify what is necessarily—as came out from the Minister's speech—a complicated part of the Bill. It would be wrong to try to sum up the Minister's comments, but he said basically that although his clauses may seem to be complicated, they will make the system easier and introduce flexibility, instead of the big-bang theory of a unitary development plan that people must wait years to change substantially. I admit that that does not do justice to the Minister's speech. 
 However, the Minister has underestimated my hon. Friend's work. It is not just that new clause 49, which I calculate is about two pages long, would replace 15 clauses that cover eight pages, making the Bill shorter and simpler. The new clause would also introduce the important concept of conciliation, which is vital in town and country planning matters and regulations. It would encourage negotiation between the Secretary of State and the local planning authority and between the local planning authority and those making representations. 
 I accept that I underestimated the flexibility that the Minister pointed out in part 2, but he underestimated the flexibility that could be built into the new clause. If I were typically in a halfway house, I would say that what the Minister was talking about in his powerful comments could use the framework of the new clause rather than the series of clauses in the Bill. 
 From my limited experience in this field, I feel that the planning system, in parts, is beginning to fail because the public are becoming confused. My hon. Friend's remarks in introducing the new clause were very powerful in that respect. 
 We live with a planning system that has evolved from the great Town and Country Planning Act 1947. I call it ''great'', although I violently disagreed with parts of it, particularly those dealing with compensation, which was ridiculous in those days. We are trying to perfect a planning system so we can show the public that it is open and fair. We are also trying to remove the too-easy assumption made by many people that, if they do not get their way, there is corruption in the planning system. 
 I remember that in my first Session in 1970, when I had the privilege of becoming a Member of Parliament for the first time, I was tenth in the ballot for private Members' Bills and introduced my own Urban and Rural Environment Bill. It never saw the light of day, because it fell through lack of time, but one of its provisions would have been to give greater publicity to people about planning applications that affected them. That provision was picked up later on, in a private Member's Bill in 1976. One of the ways that was done was to make provision for using what I call the lamp-street notice, whereby, when a significant development was taking place in the locality, it was publicised on various lamp-posts so that the people walking past would be given notice of the application. That was really an extension of the system whereby neighbours were given notification in writing of even relatively minor planning applications that might affect them significantly. 
 What I sought to do, in supporting new clause 49—I make no apology for it—was to introduce into the development plan system, whether it is called a framework or a scheme, a means of communicating to the public the fact that they have a part to play in it. If the new clause is rejected, I ask the Government to look behind it to what my hon. Friend is trying to do, and to try to ensure that the public are not confused by all the new terms and new ways, but are encouraged to play a part. 
 I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the new clause. It has occasioned a debate of great importance and seriousness. I want to say to the Minister that I have been impressed by the way he has responded, and that, although we must take the decision now, I would want to reflect further on what he has said.

Mark Francois: I want to ensure that I have followed the Minister's argument correctly. He spoke for some 45 minutes, and attempted to take the Committee through the system in detail.
 If I correctly understood the Minister, local authorities—a district council, for instance—would have to lay out a local development scheme, which would explain how the council intended to go about creating its local development framework, which itself 
 would comprise a number of local development documents. Those in turn would comprise a number of development plan documents, and might or might not include a number of supplementary planning documents. All of those will have to be produced in accordance with a statement of community involvement, and must also dovetail with the regional spatial strategy, which will have been produced by the regional planning body. All of that must ultimately be overseen by the Secretary of State. In other words, each DC must lay out an LDS, by which it will create an LDF, which may comprise a number of LDDs, which in turn may comprise a number of DPDs, which may or may not comprise a number of SPDs within the DPDs. All of those must be produced in accordance with an SCI laid out by the DC and must also comply with the RSS created by the RPB, all of which are overseen by the Secretary of State. Really, having listened to the Minister's explanation, it could not be any simpler.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: All this, of course, is overridden by the policy, which has not been explained at all.

Mark Francois: I would have referred to that. Unfortunately, the policy does not have a convenient TLA—three-letter abbreviation. Having heard the Minister go through all of that, can any member of the Committee imagine themselves in a situation in which a controversial planning application has been made in their constituency and a public meeting is convened by angry residents? The hon. Member concerned must stand up in front of said residents, all of whom want to understand how the process works because they will want to object to the application. He or she will then have to take 200 angry residents through the system. Would anyone actually want to have to take people who are not necessarily experts in planning law through the system and explain what the Minister has laid out?
 There are ways that the present system can be improved. The Minister did his best, in his very relaxed style, to take the Committee through the system. I do not say ''relaxed'' in any pejorative way at all; he has a very confident manner in Committee, but does anyone who heard the description and summary that the Minister provided in 45 minutes of how the system is actually intended to work believe that it actually provides a more simplified system, as the Minister would have the Committee believe? 
 I said that I would be brief. Therefore, with those few remarks, I shall say TTFN.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has sold himself short. He missed out SODPs, not to be confused with SDPs. However, he should not worry about it. I am following him.
 The hon. Gentleman issued a challenge, and I have to say that my answer would be yes, but it has taken me nine months. That is slightly unfair, because we did not consider the matter in the whole in the first Committee. We dealt with each clause and then the detailed amendments to the clauses, one by one. We did not consider the whole system. Frankly, the approach of putting it altogether, which has taken 
 several hours, is actually a much better way of explaining and understanding the system. It provides a lesson for future detailed Bills. Sometimes it is necessary to look at a Bill in the whole rather than just in the clause-by-clause way we looked at it in January. 
 I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would need to explain the process in those terms, because most of it would have taken place by the time the planning application came forward. It would not be necessary to explain local development documents or the composition of the local development scheme. Therefore, his argument is slightly specious. In fact, he repeats a point that I made in January, but I am saying now that I was wrong then. I hope he takes my comments in that spirit. I made almost exactly the same points some months ago. 
 On the nine amendments that I tabled, I am reasonably satisfied by the Minister's answers. In one case, I owe an apology because I did not realise that a letter had been written to me. I should slap myself on the wrist and grovel. 
 However, on amendments Nos. 149 and 152, the Minister has once again hidden behind regulations or, in the case of amendment No. 152, planning policy statement 1, neither of which has been published. There is a lesson to be drawn from that. The number of amendments that I have tabled on which the Minister has stood up and said, ''Ah, we will deal with that in a document that we shall publish in a week's time'' would suggest that we could have saved ourselves a great deal of time and bother if only those documents had been published a few weeks in advance of the Committee. 
 Basically, I am satisfied. I am a little concerned that the Minister glossed over some of the areas about which the Law Society said that there were legal ambiguities. The Minister said that the extra clarification would add unnecessary words. Clearly, neither of us is a lawyer, and we are speaking with advice from different quarters. Legal brains may tend to disagree with each other. I just hope that his advice, rather than mine, is right; otherwise, there will be legal challenges. However, that will be on the Government's head. 
 I am happy with the Minister's explanations of the nine amendments that I tabled. I know that they are not the lead amendments in the group, but I will not press any of them. I reiterate that the Government have produced a system that should be more flexible 
 and faster and should work better. However, we should not think that it is all wonderful; I may disagree with statements on the development principle. 
 The hon. Member for Cotswold has done the Committee a favour by detailing another system, because he has enabled us to look at the Government system as a whole. We have been presented with two options—or three with the current system, which is not too dissimilar to the hon. Gentleman's system. That has enabled us to consider them as a whole. If nothing else, we owe the hon. Gentleman a debt of gratitude for spending what must have been considerable hours burning the midnight oil—although there must be some hours of the day when it is not midnight. 
 I am happy with the Minister's explanations, as far as they go.

Peter Pike: Before I call the hon. Member for Cotswold, when I conclude the debate I will be putting the question only on new clause 49.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I feel, in microcosm, like the Leader of the Opposition replying to the Budget debate. The only difference is that the Leader of the Opposition at least has a copy of the Chancellor's written statement. I have heard a hugely complicated explanation from the Minister, but I have no written statement.
 I would have preferred to reply with the benefit of Hansard in front of me. If the Government Whip were minded to suspend in the middle of my speech, I would be more than happy to resume the matter on Thursday morning. I will then have had the opportunity to see what has been said before I conclude my remarks.

Peter Pike: Order. Even if the Government Whip was minded to, he could not do so in the middle of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He can do so only if the hon. Gentleman chooses to sit down.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr Pike. If I choose to sit down, could I speak again on Thursday morning?

Peter Pike: The hon. Gentleman could, if the Government Whip was minded to move the Adjournment now. However, I cannot speak for the Government Whip.
 Debate adjourned.—[Paul Clark.] 
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Six o'clock till Thursday 23 October at ten past Nine o'clock.